DRM -v- Leigh Academy Halley (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004016

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:

The Hon. Ms Justice Obi

Between:

The King
on the application of
DRM
(through his litigation friend, DRF)

-v-

Leigh Academy Halley

Order

UPON considering the Claimant’s urgent application for interim relief dated 12 November 2025 and the supporting documents

AND UPON reviewing the grounds advanced by the Claimant and the evidence provided

AND UPON the application for appointment of a litigation friend

AND UPON the application for anonymity

ORDER BY THE HON. MS JUSTICE OBI

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The application for interim relief is refused.
  2. Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. A litigation friend is appointed for the purposes of these proceedings.
  4. Anonymity is granted.

a. In accordance with 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 DRM and his litigation friend as DRF.

b. In accordance with 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. In accordance with 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 may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

  1. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. No Order for costs.

REASONS

Anonymity and Litigation Friend

i. The court normally publishes the names of people involved in cases because justice should be open and transparent. However, the law allows the court to keep names private in certain situations to protect vulnerable people and ensure fairness.

ii. This case involves a child through a litigation friend. Publishing the child’s name could harm their privacy and wellbeing. The court has a duty to protect children and respect their right to a private life under the law, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8). There is no strong public interest in naming the child. Therefore, anonymity is appropriate.

iii. The court has appointed a litigation friend because the claimant is a child and cannot conduct legal proceedings on their own. This is required by the Civil Procedure Rules (Part 21) to protect vulnerable parties and make sure the process is fair.

Interim Relief

iv. The court only grants urgent orders if there is a real risk of serious and lasting harm. Here, the suspension is for two days, and the Compass referral is a short-term measure. These do not meet the high threshold for emergency intervention.

Judicial Review

v. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. It is only available when there are no other ways to challenge a decision. In this case, there are other routes to address the wider issues: an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and a complaints process. Because these exist, judicial review is not appropriate.

vi. By the time the court could fully consider the case, the suspension would be over. Courts do not usually deal with cases that have no practical effect unless there is a strong public interest. There is no exceptional public law issue here.

vii. The court must use its time and resources fairly. Allowing this claim would be disproportionate because the measures complained of are temporary, there are other ways to resolve the issue and there is no wider public interest.

Signed: MS JUSTICE OBI
Date: 14 November 2025