Case No: CO/3222/2022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
19 October 2022
His Honour Judge Tindal (sitting as a High Court Judge)
The King on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
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 documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by His Honour Judge Tindal (sitting as a High Court Judge)
- The Claimant is granted anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) and shall be known as ‘VS’. There shall be no publication of the name of the Claimant nor of any information that may lead to her identification or that of her children.
- The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
- The claim is to be listed for 1 day; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree.
- The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
- Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.
- The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than  weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website.
- The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than  days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
- The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than  days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
- The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall 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, shall be lodged with the Court not less than  days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
- Costs in the Case
- The Claimant is an Egyptian national asylum seeker with two teenage children who arrived in the UK in July 2021 and subsequently claimed asylum. Accordingly, I order anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) on the basis the Claimant be known as ‘VS’, be no publication of the name of the Claimant nor of any information that may lead to her identification or that of her children.
- The Claimant was granted asylum support in October 2021. They were initially accommodated in a twin room in a hotel. Following a JR Pre-Action Protocol Letter in February, the Defendant confirmed on 14th March 2022 that they would be accommodated more suitably within 3 miles of Westminster Academy (where the Claimant’s children go to school). It appears a request was raised by the Defendant for this in early July. Nevertheless, deadlines have come and gone and as at the start of the academic year, the Claimant had still not been provided the promised accommodation. This prompted the Judicial Review claim on 5th September 2022 arguing inadequate accommodation under s.95/96 IAA 1999, breach of guidance, irrationality and failure to safeguard and promote the welfare of the Claimant’s children under s.55 BCIA 2009.
- The Defendant’s Summary Grounds state that a suitable flat (albeit not within 3 miles of Westminster Academy) was located in late September and an offer was ‘imminent’. The Court has not been informed by either party whether that has now been offered and if so, whether accepted or refused. Accordingly, the claim is neither academic nor indeed unarguable (indeed, the Defendant has agreed to provide alternative accommodation and the hotel is highly arguably inadequate especially after so long) so permission is granted on all grounds. However, given the uncertainty as to the present position, an expedited hearing is not. If the matter remains urgent notwithstanding any offer made, the Claimant can apply for an expedited hearing.