CEY -v- Birmingham Children’s Trust (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-000303

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 October 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King
on the application of
CEY

-v-

Birmingham’s Children’s Trust

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  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 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 CEY.

(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. Mandatory injunction:

The Claimant’s application for mandatory orders is refused

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim involves the Claimant’s children and even though the Claimant does not make an application for an anonymity order it is appropriate to protect the interests of those children by making an anonymity order. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Mandatory injunction:

(a) in considering whether or not to grant an interim mandatory injunction, I have to consider whether the Claimant has made out at least that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether or not his claim will ultimately succeed and if he has, to decide whether the balance of convenience lies with granting or refusing the relief sought, pending a final decision on the claim.
(b)The grounds for Judicial Review are written in generic terms and fail to set out clearly what it is about the Defendant’s decision of 8/7/25 or its conduct of any investigation which makes that decision or that investigation susceptible to a public law challenge (why is the decision not one that it is within the Defendant’s power to make, or why is the decision irrational or unlawful or the procedure followed unfair). In addition Judicial Review is a remedy of last resort and there would appear to be other procedures available to the Claimant to obtain disclosure and preservation of documents. The Claimant has not therefore shown that there is a serious issue to be tried.
(c)If the Claimant had shown that there is a serious issue to be tried, he has not shown that the balance of convenience lies with granting the interim relief sought:  

(i) The Safety Plan has apparently been in place since 8/7/25, the Claimant has not shown that there is a real risk that irreparable harm of some sort, that has not already been caused by the Safety Plan, will be caused in the period before her claim is determined;
(ii) It would be a very serious matter for this court to suspend the operation of the Safety Plan put in place by a public body whose duty it is to safeguard children, on the basis of the Claimant’s case alone and without the court having come to any decision about the lawfulness of the Defendant’s decision to put the Safety Plan in place. The Claimant’s case comes nowhere near justifying this court making such an order;
(iii) No reason is given as to why disclosure of documents is not something that will be provided to the Claimant under her SAR rights or otherwise and there are sanctions within the SAR procedure to compel disclosure; and
(iv) There is no evidence of an imminent risk that the Defendant will not preserve relevant documents.

Signed: HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

Date: 9/10/25