Practice – Hearing. The present judgment was necessitated by a disagreement as to the terms of the order which properly reflected the Divisional Court's previous open and closed judgments (see [2015] All ER (D) 193 (Mar)). The court specified the terms of the declaration that properly reflected the court's judgment. Further, it held that there would be no order for costs, save for assessment of the publicly funded costs of the legally aided interested parties.