AYS -v- Shropshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM -000046

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

26 February 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

AYS (acting by their Litigation Friend, AVP)

-v-

Shropshire Council

and

First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability)
(Interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an order providing for the Claimant’s anonymity and interim relief in the form of a prohibitory injunction

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

1. Anonymity and Litigation Friend:
a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
i) the Claimant and litigation friend’s names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as AYS and the litigation friend as AVP.

b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Litigation Friend 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 a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Litigation Friend;
ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Litigation Friend, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
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) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

e) AVP is appointed to act as Litigation Friend for the Claimant.

    2. Prohibitory injunction:

    a) The Defendant must not require the Claimant to attend Severndale Special Academy (“SPA”)on a full time basis until further order.

    b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.

    ***THIS IS A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE***

    3. Abridgment of time/expedition

    The application for urgent determination of the claim  is refused.

    Reasons

    1. Anonymity: The Claimant is a child who has special educational needs. The Claimant is not only vulnerable but has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their disabilities.. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
    2. Prohibitory injunction:
      a) The Claimant has challenged the Defendant’s decision to send the Claimant to SPA before the Interested Party, but the hearing of that challenge by the Interested Party is not due to be heard until September 2025 (“the Determination”).
      b) It appears to be seriously arguable, on the Claimant evidence alone, that the Defendant’s decision to transition the Claimant to SPA before the Decision is susceptible to a successful public law challenge.
      c) It appears, from the Claimant’s evidence alone, that the Claimant may suffer significant distress if he is required to attend SPA on a full time basis pending further order in these proceedings.
      d) If the Defendant is restrained from requiring the Claimant to attend SPA pending further order in these proceedings, it appears that its loss would be likely to be financial.
      e) Granting the prohibitory injunction sought, until further order, with liberty to the Defendant to apply to discharge it appears to constitute a lesser risk of irremediable harm being caused, if the claim is ultimately unsuccessful, than refusing the prohibitory injunction, if the claim is ultimately successful.  
    3. Abridgement of time/expedition:
      a) The Claimant sought interim relief or expedition of the claim in the alternative. As interim relief has been granted there appears to be no compelling reason at present to expedite the claim, although the claim should be dealt with promptly.