BGG -v- Bedford Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002181

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

16 July 2025

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Linden

Between:

The King on the application of

BGG (by his litigation friend BGH)

-v-

Bedford Borough Council

Anonymity Order

On an application by the Claimant for directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant


ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Linden

  1. By 4pm on Friday 11 July 2025:
    a. the Defendant will file and serve any submissions that the Claimant’s school (“the School”) should be joined as an Interested Party and served;
    b. the Claimant will file and serve any addition directions to trial in the event that permission is granted (i.e. additional to those which have already been applied for in the N463).
  2. By 4pm on Friday 18 July 2025, the Defendant will file and serve:
    a. its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence;
    b. its proposed directions to trial in the event that permission is granted, with an explanation for those directions.
  3. By 4pm on Friday 18 July 2025, the Claimant will file and serve any further submissions on the question of joinder etc of the School.
  4. If possible, the papers will be put before a judge in the week commencing 21 July for further consideration.
  5. Pending further order:
    a. The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as BGG and her litigation friend as BGH. (“the cipher”)
    b. The claimant’s name, and that of his litigation friend are to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
    c. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant and his litigation friend by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher. Form JR-MPA. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version September 2020
    d. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the claimant or his litigation friend of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    e. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    i. The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant or his litigation friend.
    ii. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any
    statement of case.
    f. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this part of the Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.

    Reasons
    [1] I accept that there is potentially a degree of urgency in relation to this matter but note that the Claimant is attending school, that there have been on going issues for the whole of the school year and that the Defendant
    set out its position in pre action response on 23 May 2025. The Claimant’s application was not made until 1 July 2025 and it is right that I give the Defendant a fair allocation of time to prepare its case in response.

    [2]I also consider that:
    a. It appears highly likely that the Claimant’s school ought to be joined as an Interested Party and served with the Claim Form, the supporting documentation and any further pleadings and evidence in these proceedings. The Claimant’s stance that the School should be completely unaware of these proceedings seems, on the face
    of it, to be unrealistic given the issues in the Claim. However, I have given him an opportunity to explain his position further and for the Defendant to respond. I note that if there is a dispute about service of the documents in the Claim, this may delay its progress and therefore encourage the parties to seek to agree a position.
    b. The Defendant should also be given an opportunity to comment on whether the timetable for trial proposed by the Claimant is appropriate in the event that permission is granted. The court may require persuasion that the claim should be listed as vacation business, which is the Claimant’s current proposal.
    c. The orders for anonymity which I have made appear to be justified subject to any contrary view which is expressed by the Defendant or a third party. If the School does need to be served etc, the terms of this order may need to be modified.
    d. As far as possible, the parties should seek to agree matters as disagreement will slow the progress of the Claim.