BEA -v- Staffordshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000404

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

18 December 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King
on the application of
BEA

-v-

Staffordshire County Council

Order

On an application by Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  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 and the name of the child which is the subject matter of the Claim 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 BEA and the child as “Child X”.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or Child X or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Child X 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 Child X;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Child X, 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.

  1. Mandatory/Prohibitory injunction:

(a) The Claimant’s application for mandatory orders requiring the Defendant to take certain steps and prohibitory orders preventing the Defendant from taking certain steps is refused (“the Application”).
(b) the Application is certified to be Totally Without Merit.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: Whilst the Claimant does not seek anonymity, anonymity is granted to protect the identity of Child X, a vulnerable child. The interests of protecting the identity of Child X outweigh any public interest in knowing their identity. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Mandatory/prohibitory injunction:

(a) In considering whether to grant an interim injunction the court considers:
(i) whether there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the Claimant will succeed in her claim. If not injunctive relief will be refused;
(ii) whether the balance of convenience lies with granting or refusing the application; and
(iii) any delay on the party of the party seeking the interim relief;
(b) The court will rarely grant any interim relief before giving the other party an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether interim relief should be granted.
(c) Establishing that there is a serious issue to be tried is a low threshold for the Claimant to cross, but in this case even that low threshold has not been crossed, on consideration of the Claimant’s evidence alone, for at least two reasons:
(i) The decision which is challenged to place Child X with his paternal aunt was made on 14 March 2025, ten months ago. The time limit for bringing claims for judicial review is 21 days after the date of the decision challenged. No or no adequate explanation for this delay is given. There is very little prospect of the court extending the Claimant’s time for bringing this claim;
(ii) the Claimant says that she has been pursuing proceedings in the Family Court in order to challenge the decision of 14 March 2025 but has been unsuccessful in her attempts to do so. It is clear that there is therefore an alternative and much more appropriate remedy for the Claimant to pursue in order to challenge the decision of 14 March 2025, namely proceedings before the Family Court and the right to file an appeal against any decision made in the Family Court. Proceedings which concern the welfare of a child are much more suitable for determination by the Family Court than by the Administrative Court. The availability of those alternative and more suitable proceedings is a further ground on which permission to bring this claim for Judicial Review is very likely to be refused.
(d) It is clear that the balance of convenience does not lie with granting orders that interfere with the Defendant’s performance of its duty to safeguard the interests of Child X, without even having heard from the Defendant.
(e) The Claimant’s delay of over 10 months in seeking interim relief is a yet further ground justifying refusal of interim relief.
(f) In short the application falls at every hurdle which it is required to clear in order for the interim relief sought to be granted.

Signed: HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS
Date: 18/12/25