Yusef Gojikian v North London NHS Foundation Trust & Anor

Where parallel proceedings seek the same interim relief, the court may decline to make a different without-notice order after another High Court judge has directed a fair on-notice process allowing the public authority to respond. Exceptional intervention may be justified where an apparent fundamental-rights violation requires action before such an opportunity is available. The alleged public-authority conduct and its consequences must nevertheless be sufficiently identifiable and attributable. A claimant should ordinarily put the allegations and requested cessation squarely to the authority where there is time to do so. Relief should not duplicate matters already before the Administrative Court.

The claimant, acting in person, brought an urgent High Court application in parallel with judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court against North London NHS Foundation Trust. He sought an immediate halt to an alleged ongoing assessment, preservation of evidence, disclosure and an urgent hearing. The Administrative Court had already directed an on-notice hearing within 14 days and allowed the NHS Trust seven days to respond. The central issue was whether the High Court should grant different without-notice interim relief and include the Metropolitan Police as a defendant.

1. Application dismissed. The claim in the King’s Bench Division was dismissed. The claimant’s proceedings continued in the Administrative Court in accordance with Sheldon J’s order.
2. Parallel proceedings. The Administrative Court order provided a fair and appropriate process. It allowed an on-notice oral hearing within 14 days and gave the NHS Trust seven days to respond. The claimant was effectively seeking a second High Court judge’s different decision on interim relief shortly after receiving that order. The court declined to make a different order. Even if the N244 application could have been treated as an oral renewal, no different order would have been made.
3. Without-notice human-rights relief. The court accepted that apparent violations of fundamental human rights by a public authority may, in an appropriate case, justify intervention before the authority has a fair opportunity to respond. This was not such a case. The claimant had not squarely notified the NHS Trust of the alleged assessment or asked it to stop. The material did not identify sufficiently apparent action attributable to the NHS Trust causing the alleged street following, monitoring of communications or connection to hearing aids.
4. Scope of the application. The requested halt, urgent hearing, evidence preservation and disclosure already fell within the Administrative Court proceedings. Nothing justified including the Metropolitan Police, since the application was substantively concerned with the NHS Trust.

This was a first-instance urgent application, not an appeal. The parallel Administrative Court proceedings were issued before the present application. Sheldon J directed an on-notice hearing within 14 days and allowed the NHS Trust seven days to respond; no immediate discharge or rehousing order was made. The present application was dismissed and the Administrative Court proceedings continued.