February 27, 2025

ZZ -v London Borough of Croydon (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-00424

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

27 February 2025

Before:

David Pittaway KC

Between:

The King on the application of
ZZ (by his father and litigation friend, ZY)

-v-

London Borough of Croydon

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY DAVID PITTAWAY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

1. Anonymity:
(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s name and Litigation Friend’s name are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ZZ and the Litigation Friend as ZY.

Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Litigation Friend in any report of, or

(b) otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Litigation Friend;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Litigation Friend, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

2. Mandatory injunction:
(a) By 4pm on 7 March 2025 the Defendant must provide support to Claimant in the form of direct payments sufficient to fund 2 to 1 support during all waking hours, 3 to 1 support for time out of the house and 1 waking night member of staff; and provide adequate funding for carers to undertake training, and to provide staff cover for absences and time for recording of care needs until further order.
(b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.

THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE

3. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds

4. Case Management Directions:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) 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.
(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 4 hours. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

Observations and reasons

(1) Anonymity. The Claimant is a vulnerable disabled adult who does not have capacity. The claim involves the disclosure of personal medical information, needs and his living and care arrangements about which he has reasonable expectation of privacy. I am satisfied that the interest in open justice can be protected by permitting reporting of all matters in relation to this application other than those which may identify ZZ or the Litigation Friend by name.
(2) Mandatory Injunction. In my view the threshold test is passed in this case for the grant of an injunction, namely there is a strong prima facie issue to be tried. As to the balance of convenience, the Litigation Friend on behalf of the Claimant urgently requires financial support put in place to provide a 24 hour package of care which neither he nor his wife are able to do themselves pending. I am satisfied weighing up the use of the local authority’s resources, the public interest and the Claimant’s needs that the balance of convenience lies firmly on the making of this order.
(3) Permission
(a) On 19 September 2024, the local authority produced a review of ZZ’s care plan which purported to assess his needs for care and support. There are 7 Grounds of Judicial Review, which allege in different ways that the local authority has failed to meet the Claimant’s needs assessed as eligible and provide a lawful or adequate care plan under ss.18, 25 and 27 Care Act, fettered its discretion or acted irrationally.
(b) In view of the fact the local authority previously had assessed the Claimant as being in need of 24 hour care and support (page 217 Review 2023), and not provided it, in particular night time care, in my view it is reasonably arguable that they have acted in breach of their statutory duty under the Care Act, fettered their discretion, alternatively acted irrationally. There are also live issues as to whether the current review requires quashing. The Claimant submits that otherwise the further review would not be a fresh decision.