SM -v- London Borough of Harrow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/886/2023

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

9 March 2023

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
SM

-v-

London Borough of Harrow

Order

On the Claimant’s application for anonymity, dispensation for the need for a litigation friend, urgent consideration and interim relief ;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “SM”.
  2. The Claimant’s solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant and his litigation friend, in accordance with paragraph 1 above, save with the leave of the Court.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Part 21 r. 21.2(3), the Court dispenses with the need for a litigation friend.
  5. The Defendant do file and serve an Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Resistance and its response to the application for interim relief, within 14 days of service of the claim form and bundle in support.
  6. The application for permission and interim relief shall be considered by a Judge on the papers within 14 days of the Defendant filing the documents referred to at paragraph 5 above.
  7. No order on the application for interim relief.
  8. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  9. Costs reserved.

Reasons

The application for interim relief ought not to be determined until the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond formally to the claim and to the application. That is why I have made no order on the application for interim relief.
The Claimant’s claimed age is 17 years, and he is legally represented, so he does not need a litigation friend,
I have granted an anonymity order as the Claimant is a putative child and an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.