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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1423/2023

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

20 April 2023


The Honourable Mr Justice Swift


The King on the application of


The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead


On the Claimant’s application for expedition, and for anonymity
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Swift

  1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “SK”, and pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant without the leave of the court. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge this order.
  2. The time for filing and service of an Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence specified in CPR 54.8 shall be abridged. The Defendant shall, by 4pm on 27 April 2023, file and serve its Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence. The Defendant may by the same time (but is not required to do so) file evidence relied on in response to the claim.
  3. Following either (a) the Defendant’s compliance with paragraph 2 above; or (b) 4pm on 27 April 2023, whichever is the sooner, this case shall, as soon as possible, be referred to a judge to consider what further directions should be made. (For the avoidance of doubt, at that stage the judge may decide the application for permission to apply for judicial review, give directions for expedition, or make directions on such other matters as are appropriate.)


  1. The focus of the Claimant’s challenge is a decision by the Defendant on 14 April 2023 to offer accommodation for her and her four children at 14 Abercrombie Road. The offer was made in exercise of the power at section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) and described as an offer of “temporary” accommodation.
  2. The Claimant contends the accommodation offered is not suitable, in particular given that two of her children have significant disabilities. One of those children is presently in hospital; the Claimant contends that it will not be possible for that child to be discharged from hospital if she were to live at the Abercrombie Road premises. So far as concerns the claim the accommodation is unsuitable, the Claimant has sought a review of the Defendant’s decision, under section 202 of the 1996 Act. Put very briefly, the Claimant’s case on suitability concerns the number of bedrooms available (she contends, based on a report produced in January 2022 that 5 are required, while the Abercrombie Road premises has only 3 bedrooms), and on whether (again by reference to the January 2022 report) the toilet/bathroom arrangements at Abercrombie Road meet her daughters’ needs for accessibility.
  3. In these proceedings the Claimant contends the Defendant has acted unlawfully by failing properly to assess her needs (including those of her family), failing to comply with the requirements of section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 and section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She also contends the decision that the Abercrombie Road premises is suitable is irrational. The Claimant’s application for expedition (for a final hearing of the claim by 12 May 2023) rests on the likelihood that the daughter who is presently in hospital may be well enough to be discharged, and that suitable accommodation is required to meet that eventuality. No particular date for discharge has been suggested, but the suggestion is that this may occur in the very near future.
  4. Nevertheless, I consider the Defendant should have some opportunity to respond to the substance of the claim that is made. It is possible that to the extent that the dispute is really about the suitability of the Abercrombie Road premises, it is not a matter for judicial review but rather for review and appeal under the 1996 Act. Although I have seen copies of the various correspondence leading to this claim, the Defendant may also want to draw matters of fact to the Court’s attention. While it is appropriate to expedite the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, any decision on further expedition should await the Defendant’s chance to file and serve those documents.