SA -v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003456
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
6 March 2025
Before:
David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy high Court Judge
Between:
The King on the application of
SA
-v-
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Order
On an application by the Claimant for permission to bring judicial review
Following consideration of the documents on the Court file
ORDER BY DAVID PIEVSKY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
1. Anonymity:
(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as SA.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
2. Adjournment of permission to a hearing:
(a) The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be determined after a hearing.
(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge.
(b) Within 14 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
(iv) this Order;
(v) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
(c) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
(e) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (c) and/or (d), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.
Reasons
(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is the victim of domestic abuse and fears for her own safety and that of her very young child. There are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Adjournment of permission to a hearing: There has been a regrettable delay in this matter (which was said to be urgent) reaching a Judge, for which the Court apologises. It appears on the information available to me that the Claimant and her 2 year old child have not yet been moved, despite the Defendant accepting on 8 July 2024 that her accommodation was not suitable. The parties are encouraged to consider whether these proceedings need to continue. If the claim has become academic (or its continuation is otherwise not appropriate) the Court should be told immediately, and the necessary draft consent order filed. If the claim has not become academic, the most efficient way forward is in my Judgment for there to be a short oral hearing at which the question of permission (and potentially expedition) can be considered.