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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003859

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

5 December 2025

Before:

Mr Alan Bates sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

DLM (by his mother and litigation friend, MC)

-v-

London Borough of Camden

Order

Judge’s decision – Procedural

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

ORDER BY MR. ALAN BATES SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Anonymity and reporting restrictions:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and/or section 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 name of the Claimant’s Litigation Friend 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 ”DLM”; and
    (iv) the Litigation Friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as ”MC”.
    (b) Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and/or section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, 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) 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
    (ii) 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 the order set out in this paragraph must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Parties to attempt out-of-court resolution:
    (a) The parties must each use reasonable endeavours to meet with one another, either in person or via a remote video conferencing platform, during the week commencing 8 December 2025, to discuss: (i) whether there remain live issues between them which are within the scope of the two grounds of claim; and (ii) whether they can agree terms for the claim to be compromised on terms to be set out in a draft consent order (which should include terms relating to costs).
    (b) The Defendant shall take the lead in arranging the aforesaid meeting and shall seek to do so in collaboration with the Claimant’s solicitors.
    (c) The aforesaid meeting shall take place on a ‘without prejudice’ basis.
    (d) The meeting may, if the parties agree, be facilitated by a mediator from a SEND mediation service funded by the Defendant, but the involvement of such a person is not a requirement specified by the Court, given the need to progress matters swiftly.
    (e) Any failure of a party to comply with the requirements of this paragraph of the Order may be taken into account by the Court when it is taking decisions about costs.
  3. Procedural directions:
    (a) Unless the Claimant has, by 4pm on 18 December 2025, filed either (i) a draft consent order setting out terms agreed with the Defendant, or (ii) a Notice of Discontinuance, the Claimant must, by no later than that time, file and serve a Reply (of a length not exceeding 8 pages) to the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service. The Reply must set out, in respect of each of the two grounds of claim: (a) whether the Claimant contends that the Defendant is still in breach of its relevant statutory duty; and (b) whether – and, if so, why – the ground of claim
    has not become academic and continues to require determination by the Court at a substantive hearing.
    (b) The Claimant’s Reply may be accompanied by a supporting witness statement from the Claimant’s Litigation Friend or solicitor, but any such witness statement must not exceed 8 pages and must be confined to providing evidence of specific matters of fact on which evidence is needed for properly supporting points set out in the Reply.
    (c) The claim shall be considered by a Judge on the papers on or after 22 December 2025, for the purpose of determining the question of permission to apply for judicial review and giving any further procedural directions as may be appropriate.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity and reporting restrictions: Anonymisation of the Claimant and his Litigation Friend, combined with reporting restrictions, are proportionate interferences with the open justice principle, required for protecting the Claimant’s privacy. The Claimant is a child with SEND. Submissions and evidence in these proceedings is likely to include sensitive information relating to his medical, developmental, and educational circumstances.
(2) Procedural directions / Potential out-of-court resolution: It appears from the Acknowledgement of Service that the Defendant has now provided the finalised EHCP and is also working hard to ensure that the required SaLT provision is in place. In the circumstances, the Claimant’s Litigation Friend and the Defendant’s relevant officers,
assisted by their respective lawyers, should explore whether they can resolve the claim between themselves, before any further significant litigation costs are incurred. If agreement cannot be reached and the Claimant’s Litigation Friend is then of the view that the proceedings still need to be progressed, then she will need to identify the specific matters still requiring resolution by the Court, giving reasons.
(3) It is disappointing that the Defendant has (as it appears to be admitting) provided the EHCP late and/or been late in providing certain SEP to which the Claimant was entitled. But those delays do not appear to me (at least at first blush) to have been of such duration, or such severity, as to make it proportionate for permission to apply for judicial review to be granted even if (as might be the case) the only relief that could now realistically be granted following a substantive hearing would be a declaration that the Defendant had breached its duties over a period in the past.