BML -v- Cambridgeshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000195

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

7 July 2025

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

HHJ Tindal

Between:

The King on application of BML (a child by his mother and litigation friend, BMY)

-v-

Cambridgeshire County Council

Anonymity Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for interim relief After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant only.

Order by HHJ Tindal (sitting as a judge of the High Court)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as BML and his mother and Litigation Friend as BMY.
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice.
  2. Time for the Defendant to file its Acknowledgement of Service is abridged to 17 July 2025.
  3. Time for the Claimant to file any Reply is abridged to 24 July 2025.
  4. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is adjourned until permission.
  5. Costs in the claim

Reasons

  1. This judicial review is brought on behalf of a child by his mother and litigation friend. I shall grant them anonymity, and the Claimant shall be referred to as ‘BML’ and Litigation Friend as ‘BMY’.
  2. The Claimant is 7 years old and following a requested assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan (‘EHCP’) in Summer 2024, the Defendant finally obtained an Educational Psychologist report recommending a EHCP on 27 March 2025. The Defendant sent out a draft EHCP on 16 April, yet the Claimant contends it has not been finalised, despite him being on a reduced timetable since May 2025. The Claimant contends this breaches the requirement to finalise the plan within 20 weeks of a request for an assessment under Regulation 13(2) of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and seeks a mandatory order that the Defendant do so.
  3. The Claimant and Litigation Friend live in the Defendant’s area in Cambridgeshire and there seems to be no meaningful connection to Birmingham, which has been ‘forum-shopped’ because of alleged delays in London. This is inappropriate and may well affect costs if the claim succeeds. However, given the urgency of the case and the imminent end of school year, it can be managed here for now but may be transferred to London if permission is granted. Both that and interim should be considered after an Acknowledgement of Service and any Reply, which I shall expedite. It would be inappropriate to expedite any hearing of the claim (still less to direct one within 21 days as the Claimant suggests), until the Defendant has had a chance to respond. The parties may wish to consider by analogy the guidance on making mandatory orders in Imam v Croydon LBC [2024] HLR 6 (SC).