SB and another -v- London Borough of Newham (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: C0/1911/2023

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

31 May 2023


The Honourable Mr Justice Constable


The King on the application of



London Borough of Newham


Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Interested party)


On the Claimant’s application for interim relief
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Constable

  1. The Defendant shall continue to provide the Claimants with accommodation and financial support pending the consideration of permission, at which point the judge will reconsider the question of whether the interim relief shall continue.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2, the Claimants are granted anonymity and this claim shall be referred to as R (SB and SBO) v Newham LBC.
  3. The determination of permission be considered on the papers as soon as possible thereafter and by no later than 9th June 2023.
  4. Costs reserved.


  1. On the basis of the information provided, there is a serious issue to be tried.
  2. In terms of the balance of convenience, the Defendant advances the contention that the risk of street homelessness is a manifestly false assertion. It is right, of course, that if its interpretation of the interaction of the Care Act 2014 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is correct and the Claimants are entitled to accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under the latter, it is not right that the Defendant would be homeless. However, that is the very issue to be decided by way of judicial review. It is not for me to decide that issue, merely whether there is a serious issue to be tried. Given that the risk of homeless cannot (without determining the substantive question) be ruled out, I consider that the balance of convenience falls in maintaining the status quo.
  3. However, for the reasons identified by the Defendant, there are good reasons why the question of permission should be expedited. If the Defendant is right, the Claimants are taking up scarce accommodation resource when it is the Secretary of State who should be providing accommodation pursuant to a separate statutory regime, and this obviously materially impacts those who have a genuine entitlement to accommodation from the local authority. Therefore, I have ordered that the question of permission be considered next week. It will be for the judge considering that application to determine, if permission is granted, the appropriate directions and ordering expedition in relation to the permission determination in no way binds that judge in relation to what those directions should be.

As this decision has been made without a hearing pursuant to CPR 23.8, a party may apply to have this order set aside, varied or stayed, pursuant to PD23A 11.2 and CPR 3.3(4) to (6). The time limit for making such an application is 7 days after the service of this order on the party making the application.