BKM -v- Kent County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000773

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 May 2025

Before:

Richard Kimblin KC,
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
BKM
(by his litigation friend, PB)

-v-

Kent County Council

Order

ON CONSIDERATION of the undated Consent Order signed by the parties, and

ON READING the Claim Form

ON READING the Acknowledgement of Service, and the Defendant conceding the claim

ORDER BY RICHARD KIMBLIN KC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  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 BKM.

(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.

  1. Disposal:

(a) Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

(b) The application for judicial review is allowed.

  1. Relief:
    (a) The Defendant must forthwith and by no later than 4pm on 9 May 2025 provide the Claimant with the OT and CBT provision to which he is entitled to under Section F of his Education, Health and Care Plan dated 18 April 2023. The Defendant must secure the following therapists to deliver that provision:
    (i) An occupational therapist (trained at least to a Level 2 or 3 in sensory integration);
    (ii) A cognitive behavioural therapist.
    (b) The Claimant do have liberty to apply, on at least 7 days’ notice to the Defendant, in the event he considers the Defendant has failed to comply with paragraph 3(a) of this order.
  1. Costs:
    (a) The defendant shall pay the Claimant’s reasonable costs on the standard basis to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

REASONS

I adopt and agree the reasons which appear in the schedule to the draft consent order, namely:

  1. BKM is a young person who holds an Education Health and Care Plan (‘EHCP”) which is dated 18 April 2023. Within Section F of that EHCP, the Claimant is entitled to an individualised curriculum which comprises of, amongst other things, direct and indirect occupational therapy (‘OT’) and cognitive behavioural therapy (‘CBT”). The Claimant has not received the OT and CBT provision since the issuing of the EHCP and has, since July 2024, been out of college owing to his placement coming to an end.
  2. To secure the OT and CBT provision specifically, the Claimant made an application for permission to apply for judicial review which was issued on 7 March 2025. The following substantive relief was sought:
    a) A declaration that the Local Authority has acted unlawfully due to its ongoing failure to comply with its duty under s42 Children and Families Act 2014; and
    b) A mandatory order directing that the Local Authority must secure the OT and CBT provision specified within Section F.
  3. The parties are agreed that the Defendant had, and continues to have, an absolute duty to provide the special educational provision contained within Section F of the Claimant’s EHCP, pursuant to s42 Children and Families Act 2014. The Defendant accepts that it has unlawfully failed to comply with that duty.
  4. The parties are agreed that the Defendant has not to date secured the OT and CBT provision to which the Claimant is entitled. The Defendant agrees that it will provide that provision in accordance with the terms of the relief ordered by this court, which in turn is agreed by consent.

Signed: RICHARD KIMBLIN KC
Date: 9th May 2025