CEH -v- Leeds City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LDS-000199

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

30 September 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Saffman
sitting in retirement as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
CEH
(by his litigation friend CLM)
(Claimant)

-v-

Leeds City Council
(Defendant)

and

Parklands Primary School
(Interested Party)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by His Honour Judge Saffman sitting in retirement as a Judge of the High Court:

Anonymity:

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
  2. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CEH” and the litigation friends as “CLM”.
  3. 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.
  4. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4) the claimant 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;
  5. 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;
  6. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  7. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

    Abridgement of time and expedition:
  8. The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8), summary grounds of defence and any response to the application for an interim injunction by the defendant and/or interested party must be filed and served by 4pm on the date which is 7 days after service of this order.
  9. Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) and any reply to the response to the application for interim relief must be filed and served by 4pm on the date which is 2 days after service of the documents referred to in paragraph 2a above.
  10. The papers are to be referred to the judge immediately after the time stipulated in paragraph 9 above for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review and/or a decision whether to grant an interim injunction
  11. In anticipation that the judge may order a hearing of the application for an interim injunction the parties shall file details of availability for a hearing and a time estimate, agreed if possible, no later than 2 days after the filing of the documents referred to in paragraph 8 above.
  12. If the court is minded to list the application for an injunction for a hearing it shall not be bound by the details of availability supplied if it considered that to do so will give rise to an injustice.

Interested Party

13. Parklands Primary School shall be joined as an interested party and shall be served with the claim form by the claimant forthwith.

REASONS

Anonymity:

  1. The court is conscious of the principle that an anonymity order is exceptional because it is a fundamental precept that the administration of justice takes place in public. An anonymity order is a derogation from the principle of open justice.
  2. In this case an anonymity order is appropriate because it is necessary to protect the interests of a child (CPR 39.2 (3))(d)) and it is necessary to extend the order to the litigation friend because failure to extend the order in this way would enable identification of the protected party.

Application for interim mandatory injunction:

3. It is not considered appropriate to make a mandatory injunction on a without notice basis in this case.

4. The Administrative Court Guide 2025 para 16.5.1 makes clear that the court will rarely grant such relief without establishing what the other party says in relation to the claim and has the opportunity to respond to it.

5. The urgency of this case is reflected in the very tight time limits that have been ordered for the filing of representations/evidence.

6. The difficulties faced by the child’s parents by reason of the refusal to arrange transport outside normal school hours are not overlooked but are not considered to be sufficient to justify a mandatory order without having given the defendant the opportunity to make representations if it chooses to do so. This is so, not least where, as here, the directions provide for a very abbreviated timetable for the filing of those representations.

Interested Party

7. It seems to me that the school is directly affected by the claim in the sense that their responsibility for the claimant after 12.00pm and until he is transported home will be dependent on the outcome of the claim.

Dated 29th September 2025