November 12, 2025

CLS -v- Leicestershire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000161

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

31 October 2025

Before:

HHJ Richard Williams
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
CLS

-v-

Leicestershire County Council

Order

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

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

ORDER BY HHJ Richard Williams sitting as a Judge of the High Court

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 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 “CLS”;
the children are to be referred to orally and in writing as “LS”, “TS” and together 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 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.

(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 and/or the Children;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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.

Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: No order for costs.
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 1 hour, 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 made the anonymity order to protect the identities of the Children, who are minors.

(2) C seeks permission to challenge by way of Judicial Review the following conduct of the Defendant:

Ground 1 – Unlawful Removal (Exhibits CS1):
On 20 January 2020, the Claimant’s children were removed from her care without a court order, signed Section 20 consent, or Police Protection Order. The Local Authority has since admitted that no lawful authority existed until an Interim Care Order was granted on 7 February 2020. The Claimant explicitly objected at the time. This removal was unlawful under the Children Act 1989 and constituted a breach of Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 of the ECHR.

Ground 2 – Flawed Parenting Assessments (Exhibits CS2):
The parenting assessments conducted in 2020 and 2021 were substantively flawed, procedurally unfair, and discriminatory. They failed to properly consider the Claimant’s hearing impairment, grief, and trauma. Her expressions of grief were pathologised, and her disability was used as negative evidence, breaching Article 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010.

Ground 3 – Failure to Follow the Court-Ordered Trajectory Plan (Exhibits CS3):
In September 2021, the Claimant agreed to a court-endorsed six-month trajectory plan for reunification. The Local Authority failed to deliver core components of the plan, such as psychological reassessment, increased contact, or home visits. Progress was ignored, meetings were missed, and contact was limited. The Claimant’s disabilities were again disregarded and used as justification to halt progress. Safeguarding concerns regarding the children’s carers were ignored, and the Local Authority allowed the carers to book a holiday to America for August 2022—during a period when reunification should have been either underway or completed had the plan been properly followed. These failures breached Articles 6, 8, and 14 ECHR and statutory duties under the Children Act 1989.

Ground 4 – Failure to Assess Concerns about Joe and Lowri (Exhibits CS4): Despite raising clear safeguarding concerns about her brother Joe’s drug use and immaturity, the Defendant approved a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) in favour of Joe and his partner, Lowri. These concerns were later substantiated by evidence of domestic abuse and substance misuse. The Local Authority failed to reassess or intervene promptly, breaching its safeguarding obligations and further harming Logan. The decision to grant and then later remove the SGO constitutes a breach of Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 ECHR.

Ground 5 – Failure to Assess Gerri and Ian Moore (Exhibits CS5): The Defendant conducted two assessments (2020 and 2024) of Gerri and Ian Moore, which failed to properly consider serious safeguarding risks, including prior violence and emotionally abusive behaviour. The Defendant repeatedly gave more weight to Gerri’s oppositional and unprofessional views than to independent expert opinion, demonstrating systemic bias and procedural unfairness.

Ground 6 – Refusal to Facilitate Contact or Provide Support (Exhibits CS6): N461 Section 5 – Statement of Facts Relied On 2 | Page From August 2023 onward, the Defendant refused to provide Logan with therapeutic support or reassess his views about contact, relying instead on a false narrative that the Claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from contact due to mental illness. Despite being aware of the emotional harm and misinformation influencing Logan’s position, the Defendant failed to act. This constituted a breach of duties to promote family life and child welfare, and breached Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 ECHR.

Ground 7 – Breach of Court Order on Narrative to Logan (Exhibits CS7):
On 20 December 2024, the family court ordered that an accurate and agreed narrative be shared with Logan. On 26 February 2025, the Defendant informed the Claimant during a Child in Need meeting that it would not comply, citing opposition from the carers. The Defendant only complied after receiving a pre-action letter on 1 March 2025, delivering the narrative on 4 April 2025. This is a clear and recent breach of Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR and stands as the most proximate and reviewable decision, bringing the overall claim within the limitation period. It also exemplifies the same ongoing patterns of bad faith, delay, and disregard for lawful process that underpin the other grounds.

Ground 8 – Discrimination and Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments (Exhibits CS8):
Throughout this period, the Defendant failed to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant’s hearing impairment and later-diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. No assessment of needs was carried out. Her communication style—shaped by these disabilities—was repeatedly misinterpreted as defiance or aggression and used against her in assessments, contact reports, and planning decisions. This compounded disadvantage breached the Equality Act 2010 and Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 ECHR.”

(3) The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 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.

….

6.4 Time limits

6.4.1 Claims for judicial review must be started promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds for making the claim first arose [Civil Procedure Rules r.54.5(1)]……..The primary requirement is to start the claim promptly. Even if the claim has been commenced within 3 months from the date of the conduct challenged, it may still be out of time if the claimant did not start the claim promptly.”

(4) Permission is refused because:

(a) Ground 1 is very substantially out of time. I am not persuaded that I ought to exercise my discretion to extend the time when (i) C has not provided any or any good reason for the delay in bringing this challenge, and (ii) the delay is over 5 years.

(b) Whilst the remaining Grounds are also largely out of time, albeit to lesser degrees, they all relate to conduct during the course of earlier Family Court proceedings. C was a party to and legally represented in the Family Court proceedings. C could have, and in some incidents did, challenge the conduct now complained of during the course of the Family Court proceedings. Therefore, there was an alternative and adequate remedy available to C in relation to the remaining Grounds.

(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 D has been successful in resisting the claim, I have departed from the usual order and made no order for costs because D filed its AofS out of time. It would be unjust to have found against C on the substantive claim at least in part on the ground of delay in bringing that claim but then not reflect D’s own delay in filing the AofS when considering the issue of costs. In the event that C makes a valid request for reconsideration, D may renew their applications for costs at the permission hearing.

Signed: HHJ Richard Williams

Date: 31 October 2025