ASN -v- Hampshire County Council and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-000197

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

19 May 2026

Before:

Karen Ridge
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
ASN
(Claimant)

-v-

(1) Hampshire County Council
(2) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Constabulary
(Defendants)

and

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review

Following consideration of the Claimant’s email dated 8 May 2026

ORDER by Karen Ridge sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

(1) Anonymity:

    (a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public and the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ASN.

    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

    (d) The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 7 May 2026 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that order.”

      (e) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an
      application, served on each party.

      (f) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk.

      (2) Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

      (3) Costs: The Claimant must pay the First Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,500. The Claimant must pay the Second Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence summarily assessed in the sum of £885. The Claimant must pay the Interested Party’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence summarily assessed in the sum of £1,188.

      (4) Further provision as to costs:

      (a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

      (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 3 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

      (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 3 is a final order, and the Claimant must pay the sums specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

      (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance
      with (i) above:

      • the other parties may, within 14 days after the date on which
        the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
      • if the other party/parties file(s) and serve(s) on the Claimant, submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
      • the Court will determine the appropriate costs order on the
        papers;
      • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of
        the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the
        Court specifies another date.

      (b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

      (i) Paragraph 3 does not become final in relation to the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

      • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
      • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

      (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 3 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

      (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

      • the other party/parties may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
      • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant, submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
      • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
      • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

      (5) Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

        (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

        (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

        (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

        (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

        (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

        (iv) this Order;

        (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

        (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

        (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

        (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

        (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

        (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

        (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission
        Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

        (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

        (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

        Reasons

        C refers to Claimant, D1 is the first Defendant, D2 is the second Defendant and IP is the Interested Party

        1. Anonymity: whilst anonymity has not been asked for by the C, I have made an anonymity order because the claim involves references to safeguarding services in respect of the Claimant’s children.
        2. General Observations: C seeks permission to challenge “the lawfulness of decisions, actions and omissions by D1 and D2 between 2022 and 2025 in relation to safeguarding referrals, police decision-making, data processing and the handling of C’s reports of stalking, harassment and credible threats to life”. C’s grounds seem to focus almost entirely on a safeguarding referral made in January 2023 and subsequent steps taken by D1/D2 in the early part of 2023. The statement of facts and grounds runs to 148 pages. It is a detailed and somewhat confusing account of events. The papers are repetitive in places, and the grounds of challenge are difficult to discern.
        3. The C is the parent of minor children who live within the locality of D1. In March 2023 the C submitted a stage 1 complaint to D1 about a safeguarding referral and inspection at her home. That complaint was answered with an explanation as to D1s statutory duties in response to safeguarding referrals. C did not escalate the complaint to stage 1 or 2. In April 2025 the C referred the matter to the IP. On 13 June 2025 the IP declined to investigate the complaint on the basis that it was made more than 12 months after the events complained of.
        4. The C also made 6 complaints to the Professional Standards Department of D2 because of police involvement in the safeguarding referral. An apology was issued in relation to one of the complaints, the other 5 complaints were not upheld. The decision was dated 8 April 2025. The C then raised a complaint to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire who did not uphold the complaint and maintained that decision on review on 18 September 2025. It is not clear therefore why D2 has been named as a defendant in these proceedings. There is no decision of D2 that is subject to challenge.
        5. The proceedings are not brought against IP. However, it appears that the C seeks to challenge IP’s decision not to investigate the complaint against D1s handling of the safeguarding referral. IP has indicated that it remains neutral as to the allegations against D1 and D2. IP asks to be removed as a party to these proceedings if permission is granted on the basis that there is no claim against it.
        6. Promptness: The March 2023 complaint was dealt with at stage 1 with a response. The Claimant did not seek to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of D1’s complaint process. In April 2025 the C referred the matter to the IP and on 13 June 2025 the IP issued a final decision declining to investigate the complaint. The Ombudsman issued its Final Decision on 14 June 2025, and the Claimant filed her claim on 15 January 2026. The Ombudsman’s position is that if the Claimant is seeking to challenge the Ombudsman’s decision-making, then the Claimant failed to file her claim within three months of the date of the Final Decision, pursuant to CPR rule 54.5(1).
        7. The C is required to bring her claim within 3 months of the decision or action complained of. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the claim was not commenced promptly and that there was no good reason for it being issued outside the 3-month time period. In any event I am satisfied that permission should be refused on the merits for the reasons below.
        8. Merits: There are 8 alleged grounds of challenge, none of which identify any arguable public law grounds for challenge. D1 has acted in accordance with its statutory duties in terms of safeguarding responsibilities. The claim does not identify any decision or action of D2 which is actionable. The letter of 18 September 2025 was the Police and Crime Commissioner’s decision not to uphold the complaint against D2. The PCC is not named as a party.
        9. The Ombudsman is named as an IP but not a Defendant. The C’s complaint to the IP related to D1s handling of a safeguarding referral and actions throughout January and February 2023. The C sent a complaint to D1 on 9 March 2023. The C then sought to pursue her complaint against D1 with the Ombudsman some 25 months later. The Ombudsman undertook and assessment and issued a Final Decision on 14 June 2025 declining to investigate because the complaint was significantly late.
        10. In any event, the Ombudsman indicated that even if discretion to investigate was exercised, then the investigation was unlikely to result in a finding of fault given that there is a low threshold for engagement when a safeguarding referral is made. The allegation of procedural unfairness is without foundation; the Ombudsman’s discretion was properly exercised and the C’s allegations that the Ombudsman failed to investigate the totality of the complaints is without merit. There is no basis for contending that the IP breached legitimate expectations of the C or failed to provide an effective remedy.
        11. None of the grounds disclose any reasonable or arguable cause of action. The claim is unmeritorious. Whilst there is provision for the C to seek to renew her application for permission, she should consider carefully whether she chooses to do so. To renew an application which goes to an oral hearing and is unsuccessful could result in further costs being incurred.
        12. Costs: D1 and D2 each apply for their costs in the preparation of the Acknowledgement of Service. I see no reason to demur from the usual rule that a successful Defendant should recover those costs. The costs of D1 are summarily assessed at £1500. Similarly, the costs of D2 are summarily assessed at £885. The IP also seeks it costs of responding to the claim, given that allegations are made against the IP and its acknowledgement of service has been of great assistance to the court, it is appropriate to award the IP its costs, those costs are summarily assessed in the sum of £1,188.

        Signed: Karen Ridge