RK and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-003631

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

22 March 2024

Before:

SIR DUNCAN OUSELEY sitting as a High Court Judge

Between:

RK
KS (by RK as litigation friend)
RS ( by RK as litigation friend)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties
ORDER by SIR DUNCAN OUSELEY sitting as a High Court Judge

1. The application for permission is adjourned for hearing in court, on notice to the Defendant, t/e 90 mins. This is to be brought on with reasonable expedition.

2. The parties are to provide a written estimate within 7 days of service of this Order if they disagree with the estimate at 1 above.

3. The Claimants must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing, not exceeding 7 pages .

4. The Respondent must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 4 days before the date of the hearing, not exceeding 5 pages.

5. A Core bundle to be agreed but not exceeding 200 pages is to accompany the Skeleton Argument of the Claimants. (Most of the relevant legislative/ policy/ authority passages are in the SFG. I cannot see that any more than 3 or 4 authorities need to be cited at most.)

6. The case shall be listed and the Claimants referred to as shown above, and shall not be identified in any other way.

Observations

I consider that the true issues about what money should or should not be paid to or repaid by these claimants should be clearly identified, and the basis for the disagreements clearly identified by reference to the page of the core bundle where the decision is made and why. A schedule may help. The arguability of the true issues can then be better judged. I am far from persuaded that they are all arguable and consider that oral argument should enable a far better focus on the issues and their arguability. There is a risk here of generalised legal issues and unlikely allegations of irrationality obscuring the real issues without advance to the Claimants. The Defendant puts much weight on the terms of the conclusion of the previous litigation. The Claimants seem unduly dismissive of its effects. Payment of the money legally due matters, and quickly.