TYC -v- Birmingham City Council (order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-BHM-000276

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 January 2025

Before:

HHJ Worster

Between:

The King
on the application of
TYC
(by his litigation friend KVD)

-v-

Birmingham City Council

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendants Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HHJ WORSTER

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on ground 1.
  2. The Claimant has permission to rely upon the Reply filed.
  3. The Claimant’s application of 17 December 2024 for the admission of further documented in evidence is granted.
  4. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted until further order. The application is to be reconsidered at the substantive hearing of this matter, and any interested party may apply to be heard on that aspect of the matter.
  5. Expedition: The hearing of the claim is expedited. The hearing is to be listed on the first available date after 28 days with a provisional time estimate of 1 day.
  6. Case Management Directions:

(a) If the Defendant intends to file (i) detailed grounds for contesting the claim, (ii) any written evidence it intends to rely upon, it is to do so within 14 days. Otherwise the summary grounds may stand as the Defendant’s detailed grounds.

(b) 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 10 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.

(c) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 20 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(d) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 20 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 3 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(e) 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 2 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(g) The parties have permission to agree the extension of the time limits set out above by a total of 14 days.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) It is reasonably arguable that the Defendant failed to give careful and sensitive consideration to the Claimant’s complex needs, including the consequences for his welfare of (in effect) requiring his mother to undertake his transport to school.

(2) I do not read the Reply as adding a further ground to the claim. The minutes of the meetings referred to go to the Claimant’s case that the decision was irrational/not undertaken after a careful and sensitive consideration of the all the relevant circumstances. If any further grounds are to be argued, the Statement of Facts and Grounds would need to be amended.

(3) The application for anonymity is granted until further order, and is to be considered at the final hearing. The Claimant is no longer a minor, and the basis for the order needs to be explored. At this stage, it appears that rights to privacy/the effect of identifying the Claimant justify an order that names are anonymised in the interests of the administration of justice.

(4) A degree of expedition is justified. The provision of transport is of importance to the Claimant’s education during this academic year. Significant delay will defeat the effect of any order were the claim to succeed. I have provided for the matter to be listed on the first available date after 28 days, and provided that the parties may agree some modest extensions to time limits in the meantime, so long as those do not imperil any hearing date provided by the Court.

Signed: His Honour Judge Worster
Date: 22 January 2025