WG, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council

Where a judicial review challenges a public authority’s failure to carry out an assessment, permission may be refused once the assessment has been completed, even if it is less complete than usual because the claimant’s conduct frustrated the process. A claimant must comply with an order requiring disclosure of their true identity where the court considers that necessary for the litigation. The court may prevent further proceedings in that court unless the claimant complies with that requirement.

This was a further stage of a judicial review concerning Leicester City Council’s failure to conduct a community care assessment. Following an earlier judgment, identified as [2010] EWHC 2608, the council carried out a community care assessment and arranged hotel accommodation and attempted maintenance payments. A mental health assessment also concluded that the claimant was not experiencing a mental disorder.

The claimant disputed both assessments, relied on earlier medical evidence, sought an adjournment, and continued to refuse to disclose her true identity as required by the earlier order. The central issues were whether permission should now be granted and what consequences should follow from non-compliance with the identity requirement.

1. Permission refused. The substantive challenge concerned the council’s failure to conduct a community care assessment. That assessment had since been completed. The assessment was less complete than ordinarily expected because the claimant’s attitude and behaviour had made the process difficult.
2. The council had made repeated attempts over time to assess the claimant, but those attempts had been frustrated by her actions. The court accepted that she had failed to co-operate with the assessment process.
3. The court’s conclusion was not displaced by the claimant’s criticisms of the assessment or the mental health report. There was no basis to grant permission or to adjourn the matter further.
4. The claimant was required to reveal her true identity to the court. Although anonymity can be permitted in special circumstances, the court had previously determined that disclosure was necessary in this case. The claimant had not complied with that order.
5. Unless the claimant identified herself in accordance with the earlier order, she was not to bring further legal actions in that court. An expedited transcript was ordered at public expense.

The judgment refers to an earlier judgment in the same proceedings, [2010] EWHC 2608, which had addressed the background and made orders concerning assessment and identity. This judgment refused permission at the further stage of the judicial review.