AHV -v- Nottinghamshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000025

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

4 February 2025

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
AHV

-v-

Nottinghamshire County Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission

After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant only

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. The Claimant is granted anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) and shall be known as ‘AHV’. There shall be no publication of the name of the Claimant, any member of her family nor of any information that may lead to their identification. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. The Defendant or any non-party affected by this paragraph may apply to have it set aside or varied.
  2. Time for the Defendant to file Acknowledgement of Service is abridged to 14 days, after which interim relief and permission will be considered.
  3. Costs in the case

Reasons

  1. This is a judicial review brought by the Claimant, a litigant-in-person, against the Defendant local authority’s Children’s Disability Service. Since the case appears to involve a child (who may be an appropriate claimant), I shall grant their mother, the Claimant anonymity.
  2. The Claimant says the Defendant has ‘misused statutory powers’ and shown ‘procedural bad faith’ in ‘dismissing a High Court Order dated 18th December 2024 confirming the Claimant’s lawful parental status and dismissing historic safeguarding concerns’. The Claimant makes other accusations against the Defendant including non-compliance with subject access requests. She demands disclosure of documents. It is not possible to understand the specific allegations made against the Defendant or why their conduct is said to be unlawful and in those circumstances it would be inappropriate to grant interim relief. However, I am prepared to direct an Acknowledgement of Service as the Claimant requests from the Defendant within 14 days, if only to understand what the case is actually about and whether it is urgent.
  3. Nevertheless, I suspect the reference to the Court Order of 18th December 2024 may relate to Family Court proceedings which may make judicial review inappropriate, as the Supreme Court observed only last week in A Father v Worcestershire CC [2025] UKSC 1. This is another reason to expedite an Acknowledgement of Service.

Signed: HHJ Tindal