CUF -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002049

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

29 October 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
CUF

-v-

Westminster City Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents and pleadings filed by the Claimant and the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence filed by the Defendant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. The application for disclosure of documents is refused.
  3. The application for permission to instruct expert witnesses is refused.
  4. The application to rely on a “supplementary reply” dated 5 August 2025 is granted.
    Anonymity
  5. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The name and address of the Claimant and their child is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CUF”.
    c. The Claimant’s child is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CYN”.
  6. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant and their child or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and their child in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  7. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must 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;
    b. 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;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    Costs
  8. The Costs Order is that the Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, which are summarily assessed in the sum of £2,745.
  9. Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review:
    a. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection showing why the Costs Order should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    b. If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, the Costs Order is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order, in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a).
    c. If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection:
    i. the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response;
    ii. if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions;
    iii. the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    iv. any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order, in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a), unless the Court specifies another date.
  10. Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration:
    a. The Costs Order does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
    i. the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
    ii. permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.
    b. If the Claimant wishes to contend that the Costs Order should not be made, even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days of the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    c. If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection:
    i. the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response;
    ii. if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions;
    iii. the Court will determine what costs order to make on or after the permission hearing;
    iv. any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order, in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a), unless the Court specifies another date.
    Renewal directions
  11. Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration, the following directions apply:
    a. The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, 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 version of the Permission Hearing Bundle (prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website), and also lodge a hard-copy version at the Administrative Court Office, 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) above, 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 directs otherwise.
    d. At least 14 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
    i. a skeleton argument;
    ii. an electronic and a hard-copy version of an Authorities Bundle containing those authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (see paragraph 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide).
    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 a skeleton argument, together with electronic and hard-copy versions of any authority which the Court needs to read at the hearing, but which has been omitted from the Claimant’s Authorities Bundle.
    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 have granted an anonymity order so that the identity of the Claimant’s child is not disclosed. This is a legitimate departure from the principle of open justice.
  2. The Claimant’s challenge to the Defendant’s assessment and investigation into suspected FII (fabricated or induced illness) concerning CYN does not disclose any arguable public law error or breach of human rights, for the reasons given in the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Resistance.
    Grounds 1 and 2
  3. Following a referral, the Defendant conducted multi-disciplinary assessments and reviews. Although the threshold for an investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1983 was met, the Defendant decided that, in the circumstances of this case, it should not progress into an investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1983.
    Ground 3
  4. The investigation did not even arguably result in a breach of Articles 6, 8 or 14 ECHR. Article 6 was not engaged. This was a multi-agency collaboration, not proceedings that directly determined civil rights or obligations. As to Article 8, the investigation was clearly a proportionate “interference” with the Claimant’s right to respect for family life, in light of the concerns raised about the welfare of CYN.
    Grounds 4 and 5
  5. The Claimant was not involved in or informed of the process due to the risk of harm to CYN if the Claimant was a perpetrator of FII. This approach was permitted by “Working Together to Safeguard Children and Perplexing Presentations / Fabricated or Induced Illness in Children”.
  6. The Data Protection Act 2018 and UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) supports the sharing of relevant information (including without consent of the parent) for the purpose of safeguarding children.
    Disclosure
  7. There is no requirement for general disclosure in judicial review claims. The Claimant’s request for disclosure is disproportionate and unnecessary.
    Expert witnesses
  8. Expert witnesses are rarely required in judicial review claims. Expert evidence is restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. A judge determining the issues raised by the Claimant do not require the assistance of an expert.