BDQ -v- Warwickshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-000193

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

26 June 2025

Before:

HHJ Richard Williams sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
BDQ

-v-

Warwickshire County Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HHJ Richard Williams sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. Anonymity:
    a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 BDQ.
    b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant and/or their child, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and/or their child in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  2. Timetable for paper decision:
    a) The papers are to be referred to a judge as soon as possible after the earlier of the Defendant filing their Acknowledgment of Service or 21 days after the date of this order for a decision whether to grant permission for the Claimant to continue their claim. If permission is granted, the judge will also then consider whether or not the substantive hearing ought to be listed urgently.   

Reasons

Anonymity: The Claimant brings this claim in respect of the educational needs of her child, who is a minor.

I am also satisfied that the Claimant, who has parental responsibility for the child, has sufficient interest in the matter to which the claim relates that it is not necessary to join the child as a party to the proceedings.

Expedition: The Claimant requests that the court decide within 1 hour whether the claim is properly arguable such that permission be granted for the claim to continue. Whilst it appears that the Claimant’s child has been out of school since October 2024, which is a significant concern, I am not persuaded that the Defendant ought to deprived of a proper opportunity to respond formally to the claim. Striking a balance, I have directed that a judge will decide as soon as possible after the Defendant has responded formally to the claim whether permission should be granted and, if so, whether the substantive hearing be listed urgently.