CRR and COY -v- Kent County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003336

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

1 October 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Eady DBE

Between:

CRR
and
COY

-v-

Kent County Council

Order

On an application by the Claimants for urgent injunctive relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants:

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE

  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 Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as CRR and COY.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants’ child, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants’ child 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 Claimants’ child;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants’ child, 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. Urgent injunctive/other interim relief:

The claimants’ application for injunctive relief is refused.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimants are the parents of a child. Their application concerns an Initial Child Protection Conference (“ICPC”) relating to their child, and identifies matters of a personal and confidential nature relating to their child and issues relating to her health, in respect of which she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Identifying the Claimants would enable their child to be identified. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Urgent injunctive/other interim relief:

(a) The claimants seek an injunction to prevent the ICPC relating to their child, which is scheduled for tomorrow, 2 October 2025, proceeding. In part they complain that this would be unlawful because the legality of the defendant’s decision under section 47 Children Act 1989 is in issue. The defendant’s decision to proceed to an ICPC was however, made on 10 September 2025. To the extent that the claimants are seeking to challenge that decision, any application for interim relief could have been made, on notice, at an earlier stage.
(b) Moreover, to the extent that the claimants seek to complain of the defendant’s procedures in reaching its decision, those are matters that they are entitled to raise under the defendant’s internal complaints procedures. It would seem that a complaint was made and a meeting offered (on 6 August 2025), but the claimants have not taken this forward.
(c) Otherwise, the claimants contend that an injunction should be granted to prevent the ICPC proceeding on 2 October 2025 because (i) there have been conflicting times given for the listing; (ii) relevant documents were served late; (iii) the interpreter arrangements that have been put in place are inadequate.
(d) Accepting that the initial email notification of the meeting on 2 October 2025 stated this would be at 2 pm, the later, formal notice of the meeting schedule it for 10 am. This is plainly something that can be clarified with the defendant and, of itself, cannot justify the grant of injunctive relief.
(e) The defendant has previously listed all the documentation provided in good time for the ICPC. To the extent that the claimants contend that other documents have been served late/are still outstanding, they have not explained how this substantively impacts upon their ability to participate in the ICPC. When previously issues regarding late service of documents were identified with the defendant, the earlier scheduled ICPC was adjourned; there is no reason to think that would not be done again if that was necessary. This does not justify the grant of injunctive relief.
(f) A remote interpreter has been arranged for the ICPC; there is no reason at this stage to consider this will not be adequate.
(g) Otherwise, the claimants suggest that proportionate alternatives to escalation have not been adequately considered. These are, however, matters that can be raised with the defendant at the ICPC. The application for injunctive/urgent interim relief in this regard is premature.
(h) I am not satisfied that the claimants have identified a serious issue to be tried. Certainly the application does not identify grounds that would warrant the exceptional grant of urgent interim relief on a without notice basis. The application is therefore refused.

Signed: Mrs Justice Eady DBE
Date: 1 October 2025