DW -v- Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-BHM-000147

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

7 May 2026

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King
on the application of
DW
(a child by his litigation friend, RM)

-v-

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s response to the Claimant’s application for a rolled up hearing

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  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 DW and his litigation friend as RM.

(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. Rolled-up hearing: The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be listed as a “rolled-up” hearing. If permission is granted, the court will proceed immediately to determine the claim.
  2. Expedition: The hearing is to be listed on the first available date after 1 July 2026 with a time estimate of 1 day.
  3. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Claimant must, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, file an undertaking to pay the continuation fee (see below) if permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

(b) The Defendant must, within 28 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 10 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (b) above.

(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard- copy versions of the hearing bundle

(e) parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the hearing.

(f) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

Anonymity: The Claimant is a vulnerable child and naming him or his litigation friend may cause harm to the Claimant from any resulting publicity There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Rolled up hearing: The claim concerns the welfare of a child which is by its nature an urgent case.
A rolled up hearing may well, because of the complexities, lead to a saving of court time and costs overall.

Signed: His Honour Judge Rawlings
Date: 7 May 2026