ETC -v- London Borough of Merton (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004492

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

19 December 2025

Before:

The Hon. Ms Justice Norton

Between:

The King
on the application of
ETC
(by her mother and litigation friend, EUS)

-v-

London Borough of Merton

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s letter to the court dated 15 December 2025; and following consideration of the documents lodged by the Defendant on 17 December 2025 clarifying it’s position and the Claimant’s reply dated 18 December in response to the order made by Mr Justice Mould on 16 December 2025

ORDER BY THE HON. MS JUSTICE NORTON

  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 “ETC”;

(iii) the Claimant’s mother is to be referred to orally and in writing as “EUS”.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant and/or the Claimant’s mother of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and/or the Claimant’s mother 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;

(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 this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Interim relief:

The application for interim relief is refused

3. Timetable for any further submissions and expedition:

(a) The Claimant may file and serve any further submissions and supporting evidence in respect of the application for contingency care by 4pm on 29 December 2025;

(b) The Defendant may file and serve a reply by 4pm on 4 January 2025;

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant interim relief in respect of the remaining aspect of this application, and for permission to apply for judicial review during the week beginning Monday 12 January 2026, as per the order of Mr Justice Mould dated 16 December 2025.

  1. Costs: Reserved

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a vulnerable young adult with a severe learning disability and chronic health conditions. She has a range of complex needs. There are proceedings in the Court of Protection. I am fully satisfied that this is a case in which it is necessary to continue the anonymity order made on 16 December; there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Interim relief:

a) The Defendant has confirmed its agreement to the interim relief sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft order (page 58 of the draft bundle), that is: an agreement to fund night-time care to the Claimant for 10 hours per night, 7 days per week, as well as to fund 5 hours daily of 2:1 care for access to the community at weekends and during holidays on an interim basis for 3 months. An order is therefore not required for these aspects of the claim.

b) The Claimant has additionally claimed for 4 hours per week contingency care; the Defendant has agreed to provide 0.5 hours per week. The basis upon which the Claimant makes this claim is unclear. In the amended SFG, the Claimant has asserted a requirement for a contingency support package of 4 hours per week when EUS is unwell and unable to care for ETC. The Defendant has rejected this aspect of the claim as the need for 4 hours contingency care has not been evidenced. On the face of the papers the only material that appears to have been produced is a GP’s note dated 25 November 2025 certifying that EUS is unfit for work until 20 January 2025 due to anxiety and depression. It is unclear how this links to the claim for 4 hours contingency care per week. The Claimant further relies upon the reports of the ISW. However, the ISW does not make reference to any medical reason why EUS may require 4 hours per week; rather he recommends 0.5 hours per week contingency care to enable ETC to attend medical appointments; the 4 hours is recommended to allow EUS to have respite – see 11.1.2, 11.2.3 and 11.3.3 ISW report p.303 in the Claimant’s bundle. Given the lack of clarity about the basis for this claim, or the reasons why it is said to be urgent, interim relief in so far as this aspect is concerned is refused.

c) The application to make an order for interim relief without limit of time is refused. The Defendant has agreed to put in place funding as set out in para 2a above and in its response of 17 December, for a period of 3 months from 12 December to 12 March. It is noted that this is an evolving position in which a direction has already been made by Mould J for this case to be placed before a judge / deputy judge in the week commencing 12 January, and in which orders have been made by the Court of Protection, to include a ‘round table meeting’ on 6 March (before the end of the period for which funding has been agreed). Given the levels of agreement already reached and given the imminent further consideration to be given to any outstanding issues which has already been timetabled, the balance of convenience does not favour an indefinite order which appears to me to be unnecessary.

Signed: Ms JUSTICE NORTON
Date: 19 December 2025