ATN -v- Welbn Partnership (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000396

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

19 February 2025

Before:

The Hon Sir Peter Lane

Between:

The King on the application of
ATN

-v-

Welbn Partnership

and

ATT

NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board

NHS England
(interested parties)

Order

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision

UPON considering the claimant’s application dated 10 February 2025 for (a) expedition; and (b) anonymity for the claimant and the interested party

AND upon considering the materials filed by the claimant, the letter from the defendant dated 14 February 2025, the letter from the second interested party dated 14 February 2025 and the letter from the third interested party dated 14 February 2025

ORDER by The Hon Sir Peter Lane

  1. The application for expedition is refused; with liberty to apply (see paragraph. 4 of the Reasons below)
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), unless and until the court directs otherwise, the claimant and the first interested party are granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy of any document on the court file in these proceedings must be made on notice to the parties.
  4. Immediately upon receipt of this order, the claimant shall send a copy of it to the Legal Department, Express Newspapers and inform the court that it has done so.
  5. Immediately upon receipt of this order, the claimant shall send a copy of the claim documentation and a copy of this order to the Official Solicitor, requesting that (i) she consider urgently whether it would be appropriate for her to be appointed by the court to act in the interests of the first interested party; and (ii) that she communicate her response to the court, copying in the claimant and the defendant.
  6. Unless and until the court orders otherwise, no copy of this order or information concerning it is to be given to IP1.

Reasons

  1. Expedition: The request needs to be considered in the context of the background to the filing of the claim. I agree with the defendant that it is at least very likely that time for bringing judicial review began to run on 19 October 2024, when IP1 first began to receive the medication in question, despite the claimant’s asserted attempts in November/December 2024 to stop it. Furthermore, over three weeks elapsed between the defendant’s response to the PAP letter (16 January 2025) and the filing of the claim (7 February 2025).
  2. The application makes reference to other parents being in the same position as the claimant. The size of this cohort is, however, currently unclear.
  3. In all the circumstances, whilst fully appreciating the claimant’s concern that continuing the treatment of IP1 may result in irreversibly adverse consequences, there are no grounds for truncating the normal time limits for filing an AOS and summary grounds of defence.
  4. It is, however, important to make the following point. The refusal of expedition at this stage is not necessarily the last word on the matter. It is possible that expedition could be appropriate, once the AOSs, SGsD and any reply have been filed. The best interests of IP1 will, of course, be important in this regard; hence the need to establish the position of the Official Solicitor.
  5. Anonymity: The application for anonymity is not opposed by the defendant, IP2 or IP3. As matters currently stand, I am satisfied that the strong public interest in open justice is outweighed by the need to protect the child, IP1, from the potentially adverse effects of their identity becoming known.
  6. However, IP3 draws attention to the fact that it was approached on 7 February by the Sunday Express, inviting comments on the case. The invitation was accompanied by an anonymised draft of the Statement of Facts and Grounds. The name of the claimant was apparent from the description of that draft. Since the case for the claimant to have anonymity is entirely based on the need to avoid “jigsaw” identification of IP1, I am currently satisfied that anonymising the claimant is necessary, even though his identity may be known to UK media. By requiring the newspaper to be sent a copy of this order, the risk of IP1 becoming identified via the claimant is reduced. At the same time, the newspaper will be able, if it so wishes, to make representations to the court regarding the anonymity order. The attitude of IP1 to anonymity is also likely to be important but that is not currently known.
  7. Forum: It would be wrong not to highlight at this stage a matter raised by the defendant; namely, whether judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court are the appropriate vehicle for adjudicating the claimant’s concerns. At the core of the claim is the apparent assertion that IP1 has not given informed consent to be treated by the GP. This issue could perhaps better be addressed by the Family Division under its inherent jurisdiction or under the Children Act 1989. This aspect will no doubt be addressed in the SGsD. The Official Solicitor’s stance is also likely to be relevant.