DEP -v- Wandsworth Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002810

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 September 2025

Before:

Robert Palmer KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

DEP
(a minor, by his litigation friend SP)
(Claimant)

-v-

Wandsworth Borough Council
(Defendant)

and

Paddock School
(Interested Party)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY ROBERT PALMER KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

    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 DEP, and his litigation friend as SP.

    (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), 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. Application for admission of further evidence: The Claimant’s application dated 22 August 2025 to admit further evidence is granted.
    2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
    3. Interim relief: The application for interim relief is refused.
    4. Costs Capping Order: The application for a costs capping order is refused.
    5. Costs: No order as to costs.
    6. 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 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 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) Anonymity: The Claimant is a minor and the claim concerns the suitable educational provision to be provided to meet his special educational needs. There are compelling reasons to protect his identity which outweigh the limited interference with the principle of open justice.

    (f) Permission: Permission is refused because:

    (a) The claim is unarguable.

    (i) The Defendant is correct to characterise this claim as a challenge to the local authority’s decision dated 4 April 2025 to consent to the removal of the Claimant from the School’s roll. There is no question of the Claimant having been excluded from the School.

    (ii) Following the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal to remove the School’s name from the Claimant’s ECHP and to refer to “a special school”, and in the light of the fact that it was (then) common ground between parents, school and local authority that trust had broken down and that the Claimant would need to be placed at a new special school, the local authority cannot arguably be said to have acted irrationally or otherwise unlawfully in consenting to the Claimant’s removal from the School’s roll. This did not entail any decision under section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

    (iii) It is apparent from the evidence that the Claimant’s parents were fully consulted on the decision. The duty to consult did not entail a duty to secure their agreement to any change in the Claimant’s educational provision.

    (iv) The fact that the special school to which they hoped the Claimant would be moved was found to be unsuitable by the local authority and the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) did not give rise to a requirement on the local authority to re-admit the Claimant to the School at which trust had irremediably broken down, and hence which could no longer meet his needs. The local authority acted promptly to identify a new special school that it considered to be suitable for the Claimant, and was entitled to provide a bespoke interim tuition package in the interim period. The Upper Tribunal’s remarks to the contrary when refusing permission to appeal against the FTT’s decision were unnecessary to its decision and based on an inaccurate and incomplete understanding. The parents remain entitled to pursue an appeal in respect of the new provision. It is to be hoped that that appeal is heard as soon as possible.

    (b) There was delay in bringing the claim against the decision of 4 April 2025: the claim form was not filed until 21 August 2025, some 4½ months later. There is no good reason to extend time.

    (c) Further, the Claimant’s parents are entitled to pursue an alternative remedy, by pursuing an appeal (as they are doing). There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify the grant of permission to bring a claim for judicial review.

    (3) Interim relief: It follows from the above that interim relief must be refused: there is no arguable case to justify any such relief.

    (4) Costs capping order: It is now accepted that this is not an Aarhus Convention claim. Nor may a costs capping order be made under sections 88 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, given the refusal of permission: see section 88(3). The further requirements of section 88 would not be met in any event.

    (5) Costs: I do not make the order sought by the Defendant to the effect that the Claimant should pay its costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service: the Defendant failed to provide a Statement of Costs setting out the costs claimed, as required: see Administrative Court Guide 2025 at §25.4.2.

    Signed: Robert Palmer KC
    Date: 22 September 2025