SK -v- Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON- 002225

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

8 July 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Calver

Between:

The King on the application of
SK

-v-

Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Order

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

And upon the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief by form N463 dated 7 July 2025

ORDER BY THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CALVER

  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 as well as her two daughters’ names 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 SK. Her daughters are to be referred to orally and in writing as HZ and GZ respectively.
    b. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or HZ or GZ or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or HZ or GZ 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 or HZ or GZ;
    ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or HZ or GZ, 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 paragraph of this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Injunction: By 4pm on Friday 11 July 2025 and pending the determination of the Claimant’s application for judicial review or further order of the court, the Defendant shall provide the Claimant and her daughter, GZ, with accommodation which is adequate for their needs, namely wheelchair accessible accommodation within approximately 20 minutes total travel distance from Evelina London Children’s Hospital Westminster Bridge Rd, London, SE1 7EH.
  3. Liberty to apply: The Defendant shall have liberty to apply to discharge or vary the terms of this order on 24 hours’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  4. Costs: Costs reserved

Reasons

  1. This case relates to two other judicial review proceedings in which anonymity orders were granted. It also refers to concluded care proceedings in the Family Court to which the conventions of confidentiality and confidentiality warnings apply. Identification of the Claimant, or of her children in these proceedings would risk their identification in each of those proceedings. Accordingly it is appropriate to grant an anonymity order.
  2. Applying the modified American Cyanamid three stage test in the case of an application for a mandatory interim injunction:
    a. The Claimant has a strong prima facie case that the Defendant has unlawfully failed to provide her and her daughter GZ with adequate accommodation on the two grounds alleged, namely that in the light of her daughter, HZ’s deteriorating condition as she comes to the end of her life, they require accommodation close to her. HZ is so ill that where the family is currently accommodated may mean that they cannot reach the hospital in time before she dies should her condition deteriorate rapidly. Moreover, the long journeys to the hospital are both difficult and dangerous for GZ for whom the Claimant is a carer, as well as prohibitively expensive.
    b. Damages would plainly not be an adequate remedy for the Claimant.
    c. I consider that the balance of convenience in this case favours the making of the order sought (the temporary provision of the accommodation sought pending the determination of the substantive application), particularly in view of the fact that HZ may only have weeks to live. If interim relief is granted but the claim fails at trial the Defendant will have suffered comparatively little prejudice (being financial in nature) in having to provide suitable accommodation near the hospital for a temporary period.
    d. The balance of convenience accordingly lies in granting the mandatory interim relief sought whilst granting the Defendant liberty to bring the matter back before the court as a matter of urgency upon 24 hours’ notice should it have good grounds to apply to vary this order despite the foregoing.