DKT -v- Staffordshire County Council and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000350

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 November 2025

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
DKT

-v-

(1) Staffordshire County Council
(2) Worcester Family Court

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for urgent consideration and permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant only.

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. An anonymity order is made. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as ‘DKT’ and pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or their family and any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of them without leave of the Court. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge this order.
  2. The named social worker Interested Party is discharged as a party.
  3. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. The claim is certified as totally without merit.
  5. No order for costs.

Reasons

  1. This is a Judicial Review claim by the Claimant, who represents himself, in relation to an Adoption Order made by HHJ Cole in Worcester Family Court – the Second Defendant, in Care proceedings brought by the First Defendant. Whilst the latter’s main social worker is named as an Interested Party, her joinder adds nothing. As the claim relates to a child and a Family case, I shall grant an anonymity order.
  2. The Claim Form issued on 2nd October 2025 identifies the decision challenged as dated 29th July 2024 (which would be significantly out of time) but the Claimant’s grounds challenge (i) the Care and Placement Orders made by HHJ Cole on 10th June 2025; (ii) the Adoption Order made on 29th July 2025; and (iii) the Court of Appeal’s refusal of permission to appeal on 26th September 2025. The Claimant contends these decisions were procedurally unfair and breached Arts. 6, 8 and 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010 (the Claimant contends he is disabled), both for failure to make reasonable adjustments and breach of the Public Sector Equality duty; the Claimant also alleges irrationality and misrepresentation.
  3. The claim is bound to fail and I refuse permission and certify it totally without merit.
    a. Firstly, Judicial Review is inappropriate for decisions about children’s welfare, which is the province of the Family Court, or on appeal to the the Court of Appeal: A Father v Worcestershire CC [2025] 2 WLR 155 (SC).
    b. Secondly, as the Claimant has appealed HHJ Cole’s orders and the Court of Appeal has refused permission, this claim is an abuse of process as an impermissible collateral attack on the decision of the Court of Appeal, which is not amenable to judicial review as it is a superior Court to the High Court.
    c. Thirdly, even focussing on the challenges to the orders in the Family Court, the High Court will only intervene in challenges to other Courts on the test in R(Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, namely absence of jurisdiction (as opposed to error or law); or denial of the right to a fair hearing. The former is not suggested; and whilst the latter is asserted vigorously (as in my experience it often is by disgruntled litigants seeking to challenge a Court decision by Judicial Review) that assertion is utterly hopeless. The Claimant’s own chronology itself demonstrates a fair procedural process in the Family Court where he had plenty of opportunities to answer the allegations and put forward his case, which was rejected. From the limited information the Claimant has provided, that was not arguably unfair, irrational, in breach of the ECHR or Equality Act. Sadly, this is a case of a parent who cannot accept that their child’s welfare requires their adoption. None of the complaints – individually or cumulatively – get anywhere near the threshold for Judicial Review: they are bound to fail and totally without merit.

    Under CPR 54.12(7) the claim cannot be orally renewed and can only be challenged by appeal to the Court of Appeal, which must be done within 21 days of this decision. Since the Defendants have not needed to respond, there will be no order for costs.

    CPR 54.12(7) APPLIES. THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT REQUEST THAT THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BE RECONSIDERED AT A HEARING.

    Signed HHJ Tindal
    Date: 14 November 2025