SML -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-002043

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

18 February 2025

Before:

The Honourable Sir Peter Lane

Between:

The King on the application of
SML

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the claim documents lodged by the claimant, the acknowledgement of service filed by the defendant and the reply filed by the claimant, together with related applications and correspondence filed and served by the parties

ORDER by the Honourable Sir Peter Lane

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), unless and until a court directs otherwise, the claimant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy of any document on the Court file in these proceedings must be made on notice to the parties.
  3. The application for an extension of time to file and serve the acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of defence is granted.
  4. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted on all grounds.

Case Management Directions

  1. The defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
  2. The defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
  3. Any application by the claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
  4. The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  5. The claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
  6. The defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
  7. The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
  8. The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1.5 days. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

Reasons and observations

  1. All the grounds are arguable.
  2. The anonymity order is not opposed and is plainly needed in the circumstances of this case.
  3. The application for an extension of time to file and serve the acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of defence was not opposed by the claimant and is plainly appropriate given the complexity of the challenge.