BWD -v- Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000037

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

2 September 2025

Before:

HHJ Richard Williams,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application
BWD
(Claimant)

-v-

(1) Derbyshire County Council
(2) Derby City Council
(Defendants)

and

BIK
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

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

ORDER BY HHJ Richard Williams 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 and the Interested Party’s, and their children’s, names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “BWD”;

(iii) the Interested Party is to be referred to orally and in writing as “BIK”; and

(iv) the children of BWD and BIK are to be referred to orally and in writing as “the Children”.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant, the Interested Party and/or the Children, or of any matter likely to lead to their identification 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, the Interested Party and/or the Children;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, the Interested Party and or the Children, 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. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: No order for costs.
  3. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) I have made an anonymity order to protect the identities of the Children, who are minors.

(2) C seeks permission to challenge by way of Judicial Review:

“Firstly and primarily, the decision made at an Initial Child Protection Conference, 19th November 2024, held and chaired by Derbyshire County Council to initiate a child protection plan relating to [the Children]. It is contended that the enabling statutory criteria for the authority to take this action under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 was not met, and that the action was thus illegal. It is further contended that this decision was knowingly taken on the basis of false and incomplete information, whilst the decision making process was biased, and did not follow procedural propriety.

Related to and leading up to this decision this matter are the preceding decisions, which have led to harm.

  1. The refusal by Derby City Council to handle a child protection concern received from Staffordshire Police on 15th October 2024, and the subsequent decision to instead refer this to Derbyshire County Council. This has directly caused loss, distress and harm to my family. It is acknowledged that the family concerned live in the Derbyshire Area, not the Derby City area. However, it is contended that Derby City Council have given rise to a legitimate expectation that they would handle any cases relating to the family for the following reasons:
  • Derby City Council have previously agreed to handle referrals with the family due to conflict with mother’s employment within Derbyshire Children’s Services.
  • Derby City Council have indicated in writing that they have a duty of care to investigate future referrals.
  • Derby City Council had made initial contact regarding the referral in point, prior to their decision not to handle the case.

2. The decision made at a strategy meeting chaired and held by Derbyshire County Council on 24th October 2024, with contributions from Derby City Council, Staffordshire Police, Derbyshire Police, and an undisclosed ‘health’ body, to initiate a child protection enquiry relating to [the Children], under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

3. The decision by Derbyshire County Council to proceed under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to Initial Child Protection Conference, despite it having been clearly shown that the initial decision had been based upon false and incomplete information, without a fair unbiased procedure having been followed, and that consequently participants were not sufficiently informed to make an informed decision.”

(3) The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 provides:

“6.3 Situations where a claim for judicial review may be inappropriate

6.3.3 Adequate alternative remedy

6.3.3.1 Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. If there is another route by which the decision can be challenged, which provides an adequate remedy for the claimant, that alternative remedy should generally be used before applying for judicial review.

6.3.3.2 Examples of alternative remedies include internal complaints procedures, review mechanisms and appeals (statutory or non-statutory).

6.3.3.3 If the Court finds that the claimant has (or had) an adequate alternative remedy, it will generally refuse permission to apply for judicial review.

6.3.4 The claim is academic

6.3.4.1 Where a claim is academic, i.e. there is no longer a case to be decided which will directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties to the claim, it will generally not be appropriate to bring judicial review proceedings. An example is the situation where the defendant has agreed to reconsider the decision challenged. Where the claim has become academic since it was issued, it is generally inappropriate to pursue the claim.

6.3.4.2 In exceptional circumstances, the Court may decide to proceed with a claim even though the outcome has become academic for the claimant. The Court may do so if, for example, a large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated, or at least some other similar cases exist or are anticipated and the decision will not be fact-sensitive.”

(4) Permission is refused because:

(a) C seeks an order quashing the decision to initiate a child protection plan. However, the minutes of the case conference dated 4 February 2025 record;

“The Chair agreed that in this instance the child protection plan could end at the first review and there was no requirement for a further period of monitoring on a child in need plan. All actions within the plan had been completed and no further outstanding work remained.”

Therefore, the claim is academic. It would serve no useful purpose to allow to proceed a claim seeking to set aside a decision to initiate a child protection plan, which has in any event now ended and did so at the first review.

(b) C alleges that the Defendants’ “officers knowingly propagated misinformation, and acted in ignorance of relevant material information, with the effect of unduly prejudicing the outcome of the investigation.” There is an adequate alternative remedy available in that C can submit a complaint about the Defendants’ child protection processes to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, which can ask a council to make a payment to acknowledge any injustice found to have been suffered.

(5) The court has a wide discretion as to costs, but the usual order is that the unsuccessful party pay the successful party’s costs. Whilst the Defendants have been successful in resisting the claim, I have departed from the usual order and made no order for costs because I have refused permission for reasons not advanced on behalf of the Defendants. In the event that the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration, the Defendants may renew their applications for costs at the permission hearing.

Signed: HHJ Richard Williams
Date: 2 September 2025