BB -v- London Borough of Hillingdon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001171

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

16 April 2025

Before:

Judge Plimmer

Between:

The King on the application of
BB (by his Litigation Friend Sharma Shristi)

-v-

London Borough of Hillingdon

and

Elliot Foundation Academies Trust
(Interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY JUDGE PLIMMER (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. Anonymity:
    (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’s name is 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 BB.
    (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 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;
    (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;
    (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.

2. Abridgement of time and expedition:
(a) The application for urgent consideration and to abridge time to serve the AoS is refused.

3. Interim relief:
(a) The application for urgent for interim relief is refused.

Reasons

Anonymity:
(1) The Claimant is seven year old child with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. He has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Claimant is a minor and there are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Interim relief and urgency:
(2) The Interested Party operates Hillingdon Primary School, which is where the Claimant attended up to 18 March 2025. The Statement of Facts and Grounds assert that the Claimant became the subject of escalating safeguarding concerns, including reported incidents of physical aggression on the part of other pupils. After an incident at school on 18 March 2025 in which it is said that the Claimant was subjected to a serious pulling incident by a peer, the Claimant has not returned to school.
(3) The response to the PAP letter before claim from the Interested Party dated 3 April 2025 sets out the background in detail and states that formal complaints pre-dating the 18 March 2025 incident were dismissed and the school’s investigation regarding that incident concluded that the behaviours were part of an over-zealous game and not a case of on-going bullying.
(4) The Defendant’s response to the PAP letter before claim dated 26 March 2025 clearly explains: safeguarding concerns were adequately dealt with by the school; the school implemented the EHCP; and in the circumstances there was no disability discrimination.
(5) It follows that the various complaints / allegations on the part of the Claimant’s mother have either been addressed or resolved.
(6) The claim for interim relief seeks orders requiring the Defendant to implement safeguarding measures at the school or arranging education at home and an order requiring the Defendant to secure the provision required in the EHCP. Whilst the Claimant’s mother disagrees with the outcome of her complaints / allegations, there is not a strong prima facie case that the Defendant or Interested Party have acted arguably irrationally or unfairly or committed any other public law wrong. In this case there is a strong public interest in permitting the decisions to remain in force. The balance of convenience firmly favours not granting the relief sought. For similar reasons, there is no basis to urgently consider this case or abridge time for serving the AoS.