CTN -v- London Borough of Redbridge (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002789

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

21 August 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

The King on the application of
CTN (a protected party, by CRT as litigation friend)

-v-

London Borough of Redbridge

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and directions

And on an application by the Claimant’s mother, CRT, to be appointed as the Claimant’s litigation friend

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:

  1. Appointment of litigation friend:
    (a) The Claimant is a protected party.
    (b) The Claimant’s mother, CRT, is appointed as the Claimant’s litigation friend.
  2. Anonymity:
    (a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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;
    (ii) the Claimant’s mother’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;
    (iii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CTN”; and
    (iv) the Claimant’s mother is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CRT”.
    (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 the Claimant’s mother or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or of the Claimant’s mother 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 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 or of the Claimant’s mother;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or of the Claimant’s mother, 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.
  3. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and summary grounds of defence (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by no later than 4pm on Monday 1 September 2025.
    (b) The papers are to be referred to a judge for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review and/or for further directions immediately thereafter.
  4. Liberty to apply.
  5. Costs reserved.

Reasons

Litigation friend: On the basis of the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that the Claimant is a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21. The Claimant’s mother wishes to be his litigation friend. Having considered the certificate of suitability signed by the Claimant’s mother and dated 19 August 2025, I am satisfied of the matters stated in CPR 21.4(3).

Anonymity: In the light of the very serious vulnerability of the Claimant as a protected person, I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 2.

Abridgement of time: I am in no doubt that the necessary and appropriate provision to meet the Claimant’s special educational needs in accordance with his approved plan must be put in place as a matter of urgency. However, in the light of the most recent correspondence between the parties, I have decided that the appropriate order for me to make on the Claimant’s urgent application is to abridge time for filing and service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and summary grounds of defence. That will enable the judge who next considers the papers immediately following receipt of those documents (on or before 1 September 2025) to decide on next steps with the benefit of the Defendant’s response to this claim. I emphasise that the parties should be prepared to proceed to a substantive hearing, whether on a rolled up basis or following the grant of permission, on a highly expedited timescale during September. It is greatly to be hoped that matters will have been resolved in the Claimant’s best interests before then by agreement between the parties.