The King on the application of MH -v- Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

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

29 November 2024

Before:

HHJ Richard Williams

Between:

The King on the application of

MH (a Protected Party, by his Mother and Litigation Friend, HH)

-v-

Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HHJ Richard Williams sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Anonymity

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

a. the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

b. the Claimant and their litigation friend are to be referred to orally and in writing as MH and HH respectively.

  1. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant and their litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or their litigation friend in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

Mandatory Injunction

  1. The Defendant until further order:

a. must take steps aimed to lessen the negative effects on MH of the proposed change to new domiciliary care providers by –

i. Either commissioning a new domiciliary care provider willing to engage carers who are familiar to MH (for example Sanctuary Oasis, or other suitable agency willing to engage staff from amongst the current carers) with a view to carers from the agency who are new to MH working alongside a carer familiar to him for a transitional period whilst the new carers become familiar to MH; or

ii. In the alternative, making other arrangements to ensure as far as possible the presence of carers familiar to MH so that as far as possible carers new to MH are accompanied by a familiar carer for a suitable transitional period long enough for the new carers to become familiar to MH so that there is a robust transitional process to protect MH.

b. must not implement changes to MH’s day care service so as to locate the provision of the service to any greater extent than is usual at the Day Centre (thereby maintaining the status quo).

c. must maintain the current arrangement for allocation of responsibility for supporting MH to leave his home in the mornings to attend his day services and to travel to his day service, namely that this responsibility is allocated to the day service carers (thereby maintaining the status quo).

  1. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order at paragraph 3 above on 24 hours written notice to the Claimant.
  2. Any application made under paragraph 4 is to be referred to a judge for consideration 24 hours after issue.
  3. Costs of the interim application for urgent relief are reserved.

This is a mandatory injunction. Breach of paragraph 3 of this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 4 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 3 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.

Reasons

  1. On the available material, I am persuaded that:

a. There is a serious issue to be tried; and

b. In balancing the risks of irremediable harm if the interim injunction is wrongly withheld or granted, the granting of the interim injunction is likely to involve the least risk of injustice. There is a very serious risk of MH harming himself and/or others if the proposal to engage a new domiciliary care provider is not properly transitioned to ensure that MH is fully supported in that change.