R on the application of MIK and AK -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case no. AC-2024-BHM-000069

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

6 September 2024


Before:

HHJ Tindal
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King on the application of MIK and AK

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ANONYMITY ORDER

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and Defendant

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimants in connection with these proceedings. The Claimants shall be referred to as MIK and AK.
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. Unless the Claimants file a Certificate of Suitability naming a proposed Litigation Friend by 4pm on 27 September 2024, the claim will be struck out and a costs order made in favour of the Defendant.
    Reasons

    1. This is a challenge by two children, aged 8 and 7 respectively challenging the Defendant’s decision they date as 12th December 2013 to refuse to process their applications for British Passports. Whilst I grant anonymity, the case cannot proceed without a Litigation Friend, but no Certificate of Suitability identifying one has been filed.

    2. Ordinarily, I would simply direct that was done by a certain time, but I am issuing a (generously-timed) Unless Order instead. It seems the Claimants currently live with their uncle in Pakistan. The Defendant’s basic point is he or the solicitors have sent the Defendant the wrong documents and could have access to the correct documents if the Claimants were registered with the Union Council in Pakistan and no explanation has been given of why that could not be done. On the face of it, that is an alternative remedy justifying refusal of permission. The Claimants will have an uphill struggle on the grounds of challenge anyway. On the face of it, the Defendant is entitled to insist on certain key documents before issuing a passport given its significance. The Unless Order puts the ball in the Claimants’ (solicitors) court to identify a Litigation Friend and if proceeding, they should also explain why the Claimants cannot be registered with the Union Council in Pakistan.

Updated 27 September 2024

Under CPR 21, the Claimants shall proceed by their Father as Litigation Friend and the terms of the Anonymity Order of 6 September 2024 shall be extended to him, who will be known as ‘AM’.