A High Court judge has taken a firm approach to a local authority’s failure to comply with directions in an expedited judicial review, refusing to admit its late evidence for the permission hearing and preventing it from recovering the related costs.
What is the judicial review about?
In R (Abdul) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWHC 2738 (Admin), handed down on 29 October 2026, Fordham J considered a permission-stage judicial review brought on behalf of Rayaan Abdul, a four-year-old child with disabilities. The claim concerns adaptations made to the family’s home, which is rented from a housing association.
The underlying challenge raises questions about the local authority’s statutory duties, how it assessed and responded to the child’s needs, and the part played by resources or perceived resource limitations in its decision-making. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of those allegations. Fordham J’s decision at this stage was that the claim crossed the threshold of arguability and had a realistic prospect of success.
The child’s mother, Mabel Abdul, acted as his litigation friend and represented him in person. The judge noted that she had complied promptly with the procedural requirements and directions while balancing the responsibility of caring for her young child and conducting the litigation.
What directions did the court make?
An order made on 17 September 2026 expedited the claim because of the claimant’s high degree of vulnerability. It required the claimant to amend the claim form to identify the alleged public law wrong and provide a chronology of decisions about his needs and the housing adaptations, with supporting documents.
Once those documents were served, Tower Hamlets had 14 days to file and serve Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim and any written evidence on which it intended to rely. The council was also required to identify material omissions or inaccuracies in the claimant’s chronology and, if there were significant omissions, provide its own chronology.
The claimant filed and served the amended material on 18 September 2026. The judge calculated that the council’s deadline was therefore 2 October 2026. No response had been filed by that deadline.
- The claimant filed the judicial review claim and an application for urgent consideration.
- The court expedited the claim and set directions for the amended claim, chronology, Detailed Grounds and evidence.
- The claimant served the amended claim material and chronology.
- The deadline calculated by the judge for the council’s Detailed Grounds and evidence.
- The council sent a witness statement and 131 pages of exhibits.
- A further witness statement and 185 pages of exhibits were sent, followed by a 15-page skeleton argument.
- The oral permission hearing took place before Fordham J.
- The approved judgment was handed down.
Why were the council’s documents excluded?
The judge identified a series of procedural failures. Tower Hamlets had not filed Detailed Grounds of resistance, had not provided a document identifying any material omissions or inaccuracies in the claimant’s chronology, and had not supplied its own chronology.
Instead, on 16 October, the council sent an eight-page witness statement from its Home Improvement Agency Manager with 131 pages of exhibits. On 19 October, the day before the hearing, it sent a further eight-page witness statement from an NHS occupational therapist with 185 pages of exhibits. A 15-page skeleton argument was also sent to the judge’s clerk on 19 October and filed immediately afterwards.
The claimant’s mother told the court that she had received a 418-page hearing bundle at 7pm on the evening before the hearing, a 272-page authorities bundle at 8.11am on the hearing day, and further documents at about 9am.
Crucially, the council had not applied using Form N244 for an extension of time. Nor had it identified a reason why an extension should be granted. The judge said that the late skeleton argument could not properly or fairly be used as a substitute for the Detailed Grounds that the court had expressly directed the council to file.
“There is no place for such an attitude.”
Fordham J, describing the approach to compliance with court directions
The judge considered the council’s defaults particularly serious because the claimant was represented by his mother in person, and because the court had deliberately set an expedited timetable in light of the child’s vulnerability. The judge also examined the communications between the parties and the court, including the council solicitor’s initial statement that he had only received the order recently, before later acknowledging that it had been received on 17 September but overlooked.
At the hearing, counsel for the council did not resist the grant of permission for judicial review. Fordham J granted permission, having concluded that the claim was arguable. The judge also emphasised that the court’s procedural requirements apply to public authority defendants and that deadlines cannot be treated as optional.
What costs sanction did the judge impose?
Fordham J refused to allow Tower Hamlets to rely on the late witness statement evidence, exhibits and skeleton argument for the purposes of the permission hearing. The judge also ordered that the council could not, in any circumstances, recover the costs of preparing those materials or the costs of the permission hearing, regardless of which party ultimately wins or loses the claim.
The decision was grounded in the clear breaches of the court’s order and the guidance in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026. The judge referred to the guidance that skeleton arguments should generally be served at least two working days before a hearing and authorities bundles at least three clear days beforehand, subject to urgency.
The judgment underlines that the court has a range of sanctions available when parties fail to comply with procedural directions. These include refusing to admit documents filed late and making adverse costs orders, including disallowing recovery of the costs of preparing the documents.
What happens next in the claim?
The exclusion of the council’s material was for the permission hearing. Fordham J considered it just and appropriate to allow the evidence to be relied on by the council going forward, while setting a short further timetable for the next stage of the proceedings.
The council was given until 3 November 2026 to file its Detailed Grounds and any further evidence. The claimant was given seven days, until 10 November 2026, to respond. The court directed that the substantive hearing be expedited and listed it before Fordham J for 1 December 2026.
In a postscript, the judge recorded that the council solicitor had subsequently filed a witness statement and exhibits. He accepted that inaccurate statements had been made to the court, took responsibility and apologised. The judge also noted that an email chronology had been sent to the court and counsel late on 19 October, but did not appear to have been copied to Mrs Abdul, despite the court’s request that communications be copied to the claimant.
Frequently asked questions
What was the judicial review about?
The claim concerns a disabled four-year-old child, the adaptations made to the family’s rented home, and questions about Tower Hamlets Council’s statutory duties and its assessment of the child’s needs.
Why did the High Court exclude the council’s late documents?
The council had failed to file Detailed Grounds and evidence within the period directed by the court. It later sent substantial documents shortly before the hearing without applying for an extension of time.
Was the council prevented from relying on the evidence throughout the case?
No. The documents were excluded for the permission hearing. The judge allowed the evidence to be relied on going forward, subject to the further timetable and directions for the substantive proceedings.
What costs order did the judge make?
The council was prevented from recovering the costs of preparing the late-filed materials and the costs of the permission hearing, whatever the eventual outcome of the claim.
When is the substantive hearing listed?
The substantive hearing is listed before Fordham J on 1 December 2026.