BP -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001109

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 May 2026

Before:

His Honour Judge Graham Wood KC,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
BP
(by his mother and litigation friend, LP)

-v-

Hampshire County Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HIS Honour Judge Graham Wood KC sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “BP” and the litigation friend as “LP”.

(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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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. Interim relief

The Claimant’s application for interim relief by way of an mandatory order is refused.

3. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 21st May 2026;

(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 14th June 2026;

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review as soon as possible thereafter.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: notwithstanding the general position, and the guiding principle of open justice with the administration of justice taking place in public and the names of the parties identified, this is a case where it is necessary to protect the interests of a vulnerable child and to follow an exceptional course of restricting publicity.
  2. Mandatory order/ interim relief: it is not clear whether the Claimant’s litigation friend has given notice to the Defendant of her intention to apply for interim relief. In view of the fact that the order that is sought is mandatory, requiring the Defendant to act, it would be unusual for interim relief to be granted without receiving any submissions from the Defendant authority which is required to provide such relief. In the circumstances, whilst there are acknowledged to be clear shortcomings in the EHCP provision, I do not consider that it is appropriate for the court to direct at this stage that steps should be taken to implement provision without having a clear and comprehensive picture of how this might be managed (assuming that the Claimant is able to establish an arguable case in relation to the Defendant’s failures from a public law perspective), by receiving representations from the Defendant both in respect of relief and permission. It is still open to the court, if so minded, to grant partially or wholly mandatory relief when the question of permission is considered. If the litigation friend is correct the Claimant’s education and mental well-being has been suffering for a considerable time to date, and it is unlikely that any meaningful additional harm will be caused in the next few weeks.
  3. Abridgement of time/expedition: However, as is clear from the order which I have made, it would be appropriate to expedite time for the filing of the Defendant’s response by way of an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds. This would enable the court to address the issues quickly and if permission is granted on the basis of an arguable case to expedite further any full review hearing.

Signed: His Honour Judge Graham Wood KC

Date: 5th May 2026