DWT -v- East Sussex County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003978

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

10 November 2025

Before:

Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC

Between:

The King on the application of
DWT (by her Litigation Friend BJM)

-v-

East Sussex County Council

Order

Upon reading the Claimant’s application for judicial review;

And upon considering the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief

ORDER BY MARCUS PILGERSTORFER KC, DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. The Defendant is to file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief (including any evidence) by 4pm 25 November 2025.
  2. The application for interim relief shall be considered further on paper as soon as possible thereafter.

Reasons

(1) The Claimant’s claim is that the Defendant is failing to arrange suitable full-time education for her as required by section 19(1) Education Act 1996 and has decided to defer reconsideration of that duty until future school-based support cycles. Inter alia the Claimant’s case is that on 10 October 2025 the Defendant (i) acknowledged the Claimant’s school was not currently suitable, (ii) offered e-learning for reintegration, and (iii) decided s19 provision would only be revisited after staged return attempts. The Claimant argues this is unlawful under 9 grounds, that she is currently in year 11 and left without suitable education as she heads towards her GCSE exams next year.
(2) The Defendant has not yet filed an Acknowledgment of Service. A PAP response is dated 2 September 2025; that denies the Defendant was (up to that point) in breach of s19 on the basis that suitable education is available at the Claimant’s school.
(3) I have considered §§10-11 of BJM’s witness statement dated 5 November 2025 and Section F of BJM’s witness statement dated 6 November 2025, along with the extract from a transcript of a meeting on 10 October 2025. No response is currently available from the Defendant on the issue of interim relief. In my view the Court would be assisted in better understanding the Defendant’s position. The matter is urgent given the Claimant’s position, but not such that an opportunity for the Defendant to set out its position (and submit any evidence it wishes to rely on) cannot be granted. I make directions accordingly.
(4) Thereafter the matter will be placed before a judge on the papers to consider the issue of interim relief and (if the Acknowledgement of Service is then available) the issue of permission.

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY MARCUS PILGERSTORFER KC, 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 name and that of her Litigation Friend 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 DWT and her Litigation Friend as BJM),
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or her Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her Litigation Friend 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 or her Litigation Friend;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her Litigation Friend, 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.
    (e) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Direction: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The claimant is a child with various medical conditions. The subject matter of the claim concerns the provision of suitable education given her circumstances. The claimant acts by a litigation friend who is related to her. Given the claimant’s age and medical conditions, there is in my judgment a risk that if her identity becomes known that would have a detrimental effect on her welfare. This is a compelling reason which makes it necessary and appropriate to make limited derogations from the principle of open justice as are contained in paragraph 1 of this order. The derogations in respect of the claimant’s litigation friend are justified to avoid the risk of the claimant being identified through that route