CBK -v- The London Borough of Hackney (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC 2025 LON 001680

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

18 November 2025

Before:

Simon Tinkler,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
CBK

-v-

The London Borough of Hackney

Order

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

Following  consideration  of  the  documents  lodged  by  the  Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY SIMON TINKLER SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE 

  1. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Disclosure: The application for disclosure is refused
  3. 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 CBK, their spouse  as DZY and their son as EAD.

(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.

4. Costs: No order as to costs.

5. 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 evidence or any 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) This is an application relating to a decision of the defendant to open an investigation under s47 Children Act 1989 (the “Decision”). The matter is highly sensitive and so I have approved the application for anonymity. 

(2) The Decision was made on 13 February 2025. The application for judicial review was issued only shortly before the 3 month period ending after that date. The defendant is correct that a claim must be brought within three months AND promptly. I am satisfied, however, that the claim was brought promptly, given the circumstances relating to the claimant. 

(3) The Decision was to open an enquiry under s47 Children Act 1989. That enquiry was closed on 27 February 2025. The claimant asks the court to quash the decision and declare it unlawful. I recognise that the claimant feels  very  strongly  that  the  Decision  was  wrong.  They  would  like  a declaration in public that it was wrong. The defendant, on the other hand, does not accept that the decision was wrong. Indeed, it says that, based on the evidence at the time, it was obliged to make the Decision. 

(4) The Decision has, in my judgment, no material ongoing legal consequences for the claimant. I emphasise to the claimant that this does not mean that the court is deciding that the Decision was “right”. 

(5) The claim is, in my judgment, therefore “academic” for the purposes of the application for judicial review. I am also satisfied that there is no significant matter of public policy that justifies granting permission. On that basis, permission to bring the claim for judicial review is refused. There is no need for me to consider the detailed objections to the claim put forward by the defendant. 

(6) It  also  follows  that  the  application  fails  for  disclosure  for  documents connected to the claim for judicial review.

(7) The ordinary rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party. The defendant is essentially the successful party. As far as I could see from the papers there was no application by the defendant for its costs. The claimant, however, asked for their costs. The claimant has however not succeeded in their application for judicial review and so it would not be appropriate for costs to be awarded to them.

Signed: SIMON TINKLER                                                          Date: 18 NOVEMBER 2025