BNG -v- Medway Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000686

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

20 October 2025

Before:

Sarah Clarke KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
BNG
(by her mother and litigation friend AEJ)

-v-

Medway Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, permission and expedition.
On an application by the Defendant for permission to correct a factual error in its Summary Grounds of Defence

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY SARAH CLARKE KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  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 her litigation friend are 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 BNG and the litigation friend as AEJ.

(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. The Defendant’s application for permission to correct the factual error contained within its Summary Grounds of Defence is granted. The Defendant is to file and serve an amended Summary Grounds of Defence by 4pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025.
  2. By 4pm on Tuesday 27tth October:

(a) Both parties are to confirm to the Court in writing what the current position is as regards the Claimant’s educational provision and her Education Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) and provide any relevant documents.

  1. Following receipt of the further information at §3 above, the papers should be put before a Judge urgently to consider permission and expedition.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant is a vulnerable 20 year old with the cognitive abilities of a 6 year old child. She is a protected party. The claim relies on personal medical and educational information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. This claim has had an odd history. The claim was issued on 6 March 2025 and served on 14 March 2025. The Claimant’s application for expedition was issued on 6 March 2025. The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence on 28 March 2025. The Defendant’s application to correct the factual error in the Summary Grounds of Defence was lodged on 29 April 2025 and the Claimant confirmed by email that she had no objection to the Defendant’s application.
  3. Thereafter, nothing happened with respect to this claim for 5 ½ months until the Claimant’s solicitor sent an email to the Court dated 10 October 2025 asking for an update on when the decision on permission was likely to be made.
  4. Given the lengthy period of time that has elapsed, and the fact that neither party chased the Court during this time, my view is that the Court would benefit from an update from the parties as to what the current position is as regard the Claimant’s educational provision.
  5. Given the above, the application for expedition of permission can withstand a short further delay to obtain up to date information is not in my view likely to be prejudicial to either party.
  6. I have granted the Defendant’s amendment application as it is unopposed.

Signed: Sarah Clarke KC
Date: 20 October 2025