DLM -v- London Borough of Camden (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003859

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 November 2025

Before:

John Halford,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
DLM
(by his mother and litigation friend, MC)

-v-

London Borough of Camden

Order

On an application by the Claimant for case management directions as part of his claim for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY JOHN HALFORD SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  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 and his mother’s names are 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 DLM and his mother is to be referred to orally and in writing as MC

(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):

(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 Claimant;

(ii) 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;

(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. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 18th November 2025;

(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 25th November 2025

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge immediately thereafter.

(d) The claim is suitable for expedition.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: the claim concerns a child and sensitive medical information about him is relied upon in the proceedings . There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Abridgement of time/expedition: Judicial review rather than an application to the tribunal is the appropriate remedy for challenging a failure to put into place EHCP planned-for services: see by analogy (N) v North Tyneside BC [2010] EWCA Civ 135 and R v Bromley LBC ex p J [1999] ELR 260. On its face, the claim appears arguable on both grounds. The evidence about the ongoing, significant adverse impact of the lack of provision of EHCP planned-for services on the Claimant is clear. However, the Defendant must have an opportunity to respond before permission judge makes a decision on this question. Abridgement and expedition are therefore justified.

Signed: JOHN HALFORD, SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

Date: 13 11 2025