December 11, 2025

ES -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON- 002049

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

28 November 2025

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
ES

-v-

Westminster City Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendan’s Acknowledgment of Service and the Claimant’s Reply.,

ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

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 disabled child 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 ES and her disabled child as PP,

(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 her disabled child and/or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and/or her disabled child or any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(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.

Application for permission to rely on supplementary reply dated 5 August 2025.

The application is refused
The Claimant’s application for disclosure of documents

The application is refused

Permission to instruct an expert witness

The application is refused

Permission to apply for judicial review:

Permission is refused.

Costs:

No order as to costs.

Renewal directions:

Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Defendant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(e) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant seeks an order pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) to preserve the anonymity of both herself and her disabled child. The child is referred to as PP and the Claimant as EE throughout proceedings. This application is made on the basis that the claim contains sensitive and confidential information relating to the private and family life of a disabled child, including matters of health, education, and safeguarding and is consistent with standard judicial review practice in child protection and disability cases. The Defendant does not oppose this application. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Application for permission to rely on supplementary reply dated 5 August 2025. The application is refused since it is unnecessary and outside the scope of the CPR,

(3) The Claimant’s application for disclosure of documents: The application is refused

(4) Permission to instruct an expert witness: The application is refused

(5) Permission: The Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s safeguarding investigation pursuant to s 47 of the Children Act 1989 into whether her child was suffering, or was likely to suffer, significant harm. The Claimant submits she became aware of the investigation on 23 March 2025. Her claim arises out of an investigation into suspected FII (fabricated or induced illness) concerning the Claimant’s daughter (‘A’) from December 2024 to April 2025. The Claimant contends that this was a s 47 Children Act 1989 investigation (‘section 47 investigation’), and the Defendant contends that it was not a section 47 investigation. Whilst, the threshold for a section 47 investigation was satisfied (according to the Defendant), further multiagency enquiries were being made to inform the most appropriate approach to address the safeguarding concerns.

(6) This key allegation is disputed by the Defendant, who submits that it was not undertaking a s 47 Children Act 1989 investigation.

(7) The Claimant’s claim arises out of an investigation into suspected FII (fabricated or induced illness) concerning the Claimant’s daughter (‘A’) from December 2024 to April 2025. Although the Defendant contends that it was not a section 47 investigation. It accepts that the threshold for a section 47 investigation was satisfied and further multiagency enquiries were being made to inform the most appropriate approach to address the safeguarding concerns.

The Claimant’s grounds
(8) The Claimant’s grounds of challenge can be summarised as follows:
(a) Ground 1- that the Defendant unlawfully initiated and/or continued a safeguarding investigation under s 47 without complying with the statutory preconditions, including the requirement for reasonable cause to suspect significant harm.
(b) Ground 2- that there was an Irrational failure to take into account relevant evidence and to make enquiries.
(c) Ground 3- that if it is accepted that the threshold for a s 47 investigation was satisfied, the steps that were taken to enable the Defendant to go on to decide whether a s 47 investigation should be commenced,: if they were an interference with the Claimant and A’s Article 8 rights, were a proportionate interference given the potential harm that could be caused by the perpetration of FII on A.
(d) Ground 4- that there was a breach of procedural fairness and the duty of candour. The Claimant made repeated and specific disclosure requests under the Civil Procedure Rules, including CPR 31.16 and 54.14, for documents relating to the safeguarding referral. The Defendant failed to comply with these obligations. The Claimant made repeated and specific disclosure requests under the Civil Procedure Rules, including CPR 31.16 and 54.14, for documents relating to the safeguarding referral. The Defendant failed to comply with these obligations.
(e) Ground 5- that there were breaches of the Data Protection Act and GDPRThe Defendant unlawfully processed personal data in breach of Article 5(1) and Article 16 of the UK GDPR by creating and maintaining data which they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, was inaccurate and misleading. Despite awareness of the inaccuracies, they failed to take steps to rectify or erase the data and relied on it in making safeguarding decisions affecting the Claimant and her child. This conduct amounts to unfair processing in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and represents a serious failure of public administrative duty. The Defendant also breached its duties under Article 14 of the UK GDPR by failing to inform the Claimant that personal data was being gathered from third parties. This failure constitutes unlawful and non-transparent data processing under Article 5(1)(a).

(9) The Defendant submits that Grounds 4 and 5 are totally without merit. The Defendant has set out why the Claimant was not involved in or informed of the process followed to determine whether a section 47 investigation should be initiated, namely due to concerns in increasing the risk for A’s safety if FII was being perpetrated by the Claimant.

(10) The Claimant filed a Reply to the Defendant’s SGDs on 22 July 2025. The Claimant has also filed a Supplementary Reply, accompanied by an N244 Application Notice, on 5 August 2025 which is longer than the permitted 5 pages.

Whether permission should be granted
(11) Permission for judicial review will be granted if the Claimant demonstrates that there are realistic prospects of the judicial claim ultimately succeeding. It is for the Claimant to prove that the Defendant acted unlawfully and I have concluded on the material before me that the Claimant’s case is not likely to prove that the Defendant has acted unlawfully.

(12) The Claimant’s application for disclosure of documents: The Claimant seeks a direction that the Defendant disclose all documents, records, and communications relevant to the safeguarding referral, processes and investigation under challenge. This request is made to ensure compliance with the Defendant’s duty of candour and to enable the Court to assess the lawfulness, reliability, and provenance of the material relied upon in this case. However, in practice, orders for the provision of information or disclosure of documents are rarely necessary in judicial review claims and I have concluded that it is not necessary to order disclosure in the particular circumstances of this case.

(13) Permission to instruct an expert witness: The Claimant seeks a direction permitting her to instruct the following expert witnesses to provide opinion evidence on whether the Defendant’s conduct was consistent with applicable statutory guidance, professional standards, and good safeguarding practice. This evidence is sought to assist the Court in evaluating whether the Defendant’s actions met the standards of reasonable and lawful practice expected of local authorities in safeguarding matters involving disabled children, and whether the conduct engaged and impacted the Claimant’s and her child’s rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Claimant submits that this expert evidence is necessary and proportionate to support the Court’s assessment of the legality, fairness, and proportionality of the Defendant’s actions in this case. The Claimant has failed to satisfy me that the issues he raises can be properly characterised as expert evidence. In any event, expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings in accordance with CPR 35.1

Signed: RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

Date: 28 November 2025