SA, R (on the application of) v Pembrokeshire County Council

In judicial review proceedings, an anonymity order is justified where the claimant’s interest in identity protection outweighs the interest in publication, while relevant facts, issues, reasons and hearings remain public. A serious and unexplained breach of the time limit for filing an acknowledgment of service may still receive a retrospective extension where the interests of justice and efficient case management justify it. Relevant considerations include the usefulness of the filed grounds, promptness, and the consequences of permission for another tribunal and public funds. The assessment remains case-specific and may be close.

The claimant, an asylum seeker who claimed to have been a child when he applied, sought anonymity because his personal circumstances were intimately involved in the judicial review. The defendant sought a retrospective extension of time for its late acknowledgment of service.

The claim had been filed on the final day of the three-month longstop, and promptness was questionable. Permission could result in transfer to the Upper Tribunal and a full fact-finding hearing. The court considered whether identity protection outweighed publication and whether the procedural default should be relieved despite its seriousness and the absence of a good explanation.

The court made both orders sought.

1. Anonymity. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r. 39.2(4), the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the claimant’s identity was withheld and he was referred to as SA. The claimant’s interest in protection outweighed the interest in publication because he was an asylum seeker claiming to have been a child and his personal circumstances were intimately involved. The relevant facts, issues and reasons would remain public, and hearings would remain in public. Publication of the claimant’s identity or identifying matters was prohibited under s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Redacted statements of case were required under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, with access to unredacted statements restricted unless permission was granted.
2. Extension of time. The breach of the filing rules was serious and substantial, and the defendant had no good reason or explanation. The court nevertheless regarded the extension as justified by the interests of justice and efficient case management. The Summary Grounds did not materially enlarge the permission-stage issues and assisted the court to focus on some of them. The court also considered that the claim had been filed on the last day of the three-month longstop, that promptness was questionable, and that permission would lead to transfer to the Upper Tribunal and a full fact-finding hearing. It was undesirable for a decision with those consequences to be made without all available representations. The extension was granted to the date on which the acknowledgment of service was filed.
3. The extension order was made without a hearing and without representations from the claimant. The claimant retained a right to apply within seven days to suspend or set aside that part of the order.