Judge refuses to allow council to rely on late documents in permission-stage judicial review case

In Abdul, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (PJR and late documents) [2026] EWHC 2738 (Admin) (29 October 2026), Fordham J said the subject-matter of his judgment mattered for three reasons.

i) First, because procedural rigour applies in judicial review, including to a defendant public authority, and including as to: (a) the need to comply with deadlines set by Court direction; and (b) the need to apply for any extension of time properly, in good time, and for good reason. See the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026 at §§2.1, 13.8 and Annex 5A §2.

ii) Second, because the Court has – and must be prepared to use – a range of sanctions at its disposal to respond to defaults, including by: (a) declining to accept documents which are filed late; and (b) imposing adverse costs orders including disallowing any recovery of the costs of preparing the document. See the JR Guide at §§2.2 and 20.4.6.

iii) Third, because it is important, having regard to the overriding objective and the public interest, for the Court to be clear and transparent in the message it gives.

The claim concerns a four-year-old child with disabilities, and adaptations made to the family's home, rented from a housing association.

At the heart of the case are questions about the defendant local authority's statutory duties, the way in which it approached the claimant's needs, and the role played in the decision-making by resources and perceived resource limitations.

The case came before Fordham J at an oral hearing on 20 October 2026. At the hearing, counsel for the council told the judge that – in the circumstances – it did not resist the grant of permission for judicial review.

Fordham J observed: “It is proper for a defendant to concede that permission for judicial review should be granted: see eg. R (K (A Child)) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 1834 (Admin) at §105. I am sure the Defendant was right to take that course in this case. The claim documents filed by the Claimant cross the threshold of arguability with a realistic prospect of success. No permission-stage knock-out blow had been identified by the Defendant, still less one which was identified from or in any response filed and served fairly. As to the legal merits, all I have decided is that the claim is arguable.”

The judge noted that Deputy High Court judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC had made an Order on 17 September 2026.

Fordham J said: “This was an important Order, in the first place because it explained to the parties that the Claimant's application for urgent interim mandatory relief had been refused. The Claimant had filed a claim (N461) and application for urgent consideration (N463) on 3 September 2026. An Order (Tipples J) on 4 September 2026 gave directions for a response from the Defendant by 5 pm on 9 September 2026.

“The Defendant had responded on 8 September 2026, and the Claimant had replied that same day. The Order of 17 September 2026 (§1) refused the application for interim relief and gave reasons.”

The Order of 17 September 2026 also made the following directions:

• This claim shall be expedited. The case should be listed before a single Judge for a permission decision as soon as the following directions have been complied with.
• The Claimant must amend his Claim Form properly to identify the Defendant's decision, action or failure said to amount to a public law wrong.
• The Claimant must file a chronology with the amended Claim Form, setting out each of the decisions made in respect of the Claimant's needs and the housing adaptations concerning those needs, cross-referenced to the relevant correspondence and other documents.
• Steps 3 and 4 must be complied with within 14 days.
• The Defendant shall, within 14 days of service by the Claimant of the amended Claim Form, chronology and supporting documents, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. The Defendant must ensure that any relevant documents not already provided by the Claimant are provided as part of its evidence. The Defendant must also identify any material omissions or inaccuracies in the Claimant's chronology and if there are significant omissions, the Defendant must provide its own chronology.

The reasons within the Order included this:

This is a very sad and difficult case that needs to be expedited. The best I can do at present is to make a series of directions the purpose of which is to provide the Judge who is tasked with making the decision on permission with the information necessary for that purpose. There will be an abridged timetable because of the Claimant's high degree of vulnerability.

The claimant's documents were filed and served well within the prescribed 14 days. Fordham J said it followed that the defendant's deadline was within 14 days of 18 September 2026, namely by 2 October 2026.

The hearing was fixed for Tuesday 20 October 2026.

Fordham J said: “The papers were allocated to me, for the hearing and for pre-reading. There was no response from the Defendant.”

As to the documents filed and served ahead of the oral permission hearing on 20 October 2026, the judge said the position was as follows:

1. No Detailed Grounds of resistance were ever filed.
2. No document was ever filed which served to "identify any material omissions or inaccuracies in the Claimant's chronology", nor did the Defendant "provide its own chronology".
3. At 16:40 on Friday 16 October 2026, Mr Onuba [the Defendant's solicitor] emailed the Court referring to the hearing on 20 October 2026 and saying "please see attached witness statement and attached exhibits on behalf of the Home Improvement Agency Manager", continuing "I will file and serve another witness statement shortly", and finally "the claimant is also copied in". The attachments were an 8-page witness statement and 131 pages of exhibits.
4. At 11:38 on Monday 19 October 2026, Mr Onuba emailed the Court referring to the hearing "tomorrow" and saying "please see attached signed witness statement and attached exhibits on behalf of the NHS Occupational Therapist", adding "the claimant is also copied in". The attachments were a further 8-page witness statement and 185 pages of exhibits.
5. No application (Form N244) was filed, at any time, for an extension of time. No reference was made, in any communication I have seen, to needing an extension of time or seeking one; nor to any reason why the Court should grant one.
6. At 15:41 on 19 October 2026, Counsel (Mr Beglan) sent a 15-page skeleton argument direct to my clerk. It was filed and served immediately thereafter. Counsel's email acknowledged that "the Defendant has been late with various documents including the attached skeleton argument" and offered "my apologies".
7. At the hearing on 20 October 2026 at 10:30, Mrs Abdul [for the Claimant] told me she had received a 418-page hearing bundle at 7pm the previous evening, a 272-page bundle of authorities at 08:11 that morning, and yet further documents at about 9am.

Fordham J said he had “no hesitation in declining to allow the Defendant to rely on any of these documents and disallowing the Defendant from recovering any costs of their preparation, and any costs of the permission hearing, whoever wins or loses this case at the end of the day. In the event, [counsel for the council] did not resist permission for judicial review. He also fairly acknowledged that it was appropriate for the Court to mark its disapproval, and that one course open to the Court was a disallowance of costs.

“This was a very clear set of breaches of an Order of the Court, as well as contraventions of the guidance in the JR Guide. The skeleton argument, itself unfairly late, could not fairly provide the substance which should have been within Detailed Grounds as directed by the Court. There was a wholesale failure to acknowledge the defaults. There was no attempt or even reference to applying for extensions of time. It was all as if compliance was optional, a belated industry with a brief apology would do the trick, and the Court's wish to make an informed decision in the public interest would leave it with no option but to excuse the default.”

Fordham J also said there were a number of features of the case that served to aggravate the council’s defaults, including that the claimant acts in person.

“She is balancing looking after the Claimant and fighting his claim as his advocate. On the face of it, she has herself conducted these proceedings with full and prompt compliance with all rules, practice requirements and directions. I am not convinced that any litigant should be placed in the position of receiving materials in the way that she did. But receipt of those materials, as a mother in a case of such importance for her young child, at a hearing which could have terminated the proceedings in the High Court, and lacking the experience to know how the Court would react, was an intolerable position to be placed in.”

Fordham J continued: “The Defendant should have apologised properly. It should have promptly conceded permission, ahead of the hearing, not half way through it. Mr Beglan rightly recognised that the defaults were serious; that the documents were much too late; that this was inexcusable; and that it was especially unacceptable where Mrs Abdul was acting in person, and given her circumstances and the ramifications of the case.”

The judge also highlighted the background sequence of communications, and the manner and tone of communications.

On the issue of candour, Fordham J said: “The Claimant and the permission Judge are entitled to know from the defendant whether it says it has discharged its duty of candour or not. The answer, where discharge of the duty of candour comes very late, may well be to grant permission for judicial review. In the present case, if the Defendant wanted to provide documents which assisted the Claimant, this could have been done with a clear communication saying what that material was and why it was relevant in that way.

“That is not what happened. None of this can excuse what happened. Here, the late documents were being marshalled to support resistance to permission for judicial review. The appropriate course was that they were excluded, for the purposes of the permission hearing, with the Court granting permission for judicial review.”

Fordham J refused to allow the local authority to rely on late documents and disallowed any costs of their preparation. The court granted permission for judicial review.

Lottie Winson