W -v- Hertfordshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-002948

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

30 December 2024

Before:

Vikram Sachdeva KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
W
(by her litigation friend, Z)

-v-

Hertfordshire County Council

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 documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Vikram Sachdeva KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The identity of the Claimant as a party to these proceedings is confidential and shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication the name or address of the Claimant or other immediate family members, or any details (including other names, addresses, or a specific combination of facts) that could lead to the identification of W as the Claimant in these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as set out at paragraph 3 of this Order.
  3. In any judgment or report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation thereto:
    (i) The Claimant shall be referred to as “W” and her litigation friend as “Z”.
    (ii) Any other details which, on their own or together with other information publicly available, may lead to the identification of the Claimant (including any names of other immediate family members or their addresses) shall be redacted before publication.
  4. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.
  5. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  6. No order for costs.

Reasons

  1. Non-disclosure of the Claimant’s identity is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of the Claimant.
  2. I do not consider it appropriate to substitute the litigation friend as the Claimant, the litigation friend not having consented to do so. He has undertaken to bear the Claimant’s costs in the Certificate of Suitability.
  3. The Claimant has however misconstrued the nature of the relevant decision taken by the Defendant. The Defendant’s decision to identify 60% in response to the Improvement Notice as an aspirational floor rather than a ceiling, as part of seeking to work towards having 100% of decisions being made within 20 weeks, is not arguably unlawful.
  4. Further, in circumstances where the Claimant would not derive any benefit from these proceedings even if they had merit, if there were an issue about the Claimant’s EHC plan there is a suitable alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.
  5. Further, where the Defendant may be currently doing as much as it practically can given the identified problems around SEND in Hertfordshire, it is hard to see what useful remedies are likely to be obtained even if the claim succeeds.
  6. Further, given that the grounds of this systemic challenge had arisen by the time of the hearing of the last judicial review, and Amended Grounds were filed on 18 March 2024 pursuant to permission given by David Lock KC, but were then withdrawn by consent on 10 April 2024, this claim is prima facie out of time, and no good reason has been given to extend time. Indeed the terms of reference of the Independent Review stated that “[t]he parties have agreed that the more appropriate way forward [than pursuing a JR alleging systemic failings] would be for there to be an independent review into the Defendant’s decision making and practices, commissioned by Hertfordshire County Council.” which does not contemplate further proceedings based on systemic failings, rather than justifying an extension of time for bringing them (p38 D’s Bundle)
  7. Although in principle the Defendant would be entitled to its costs of the Acknowledgement of Service, no schedule of costs has been filed, and I therefore make no order as to costs.

Signed Vikram Sachdeva KC
Date: 30th December 2024