FKC -v- Hertfordshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-000030

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

6 January 2026

Before:

The Hon. Ms Justice Norton

Between:

The King
on the application of
FKC
(by his Litigation Friend-FKW)
(Claimant)

-v-

Hertfordshire County Council
(Defendant)

and

Futures Academies Trust
(Interested Party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

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, and that of their Litigation Friend are 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 FKC

(iii) the Claimant’s litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as FKW

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

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or their 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.

(2) Interim Relief:
The application for interim relief is refused

(3) Abridgment of time and expedition:
(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service, and that of the Interested Party if wishing to take part (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 9 January 2026;

(b) Any reply from the Claimant / Litigation Friend (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 16 January 2026;
(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge as soon as possible thereafter, and in any event within 7 days.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a child who relies upon personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. Naming the Claimant’s Litigation Friend would create a substantial risk of jigsaw identification of the Claimant; it is therefore appropriate that the Claimant’s Litigation Friend should also be anonymised.

(2) Interim Relief:

(a) An order prohibiting unannounced welfare checks, home visits or attempts at home contact is inappropriate. The school and local authority have a duty to conduct reasonable enquiries to determine the whereabouts and circumstances of a child missing education; the welfare of the child is paramount. Whilst the Claimant asserts that the contact is unreasonable and is therefore having a deleterious effect upon both the Claimant and his litigation friend, this is an assertion of fact that cannot be determined on an application such as this. The court will not intervene to prevent the school or local authority from carrying out their statutory duties.

(b) Educational provision is available to the Claimant at Mount Grace School. The Claimant is not willing to accept that provision in the absence of an EHCP. There is a dispute of fact between the Claimant and the Defendant whether an EHCP is required and whether the absence of an EHCP has the consequence as contended that the Claimant is unable to attend school, thereby triggering s 19 Education Act 1996, or whether the Claimant’s absence has been caused by the decision of the Claimant’s Litigation Friend to withdraw him from the school. Prima Facie however, education can be provided at the Claimant’s school.

(c) The decision not to grant interim relief at this stage does not prevent a judge re-considering the application when dealing with the substantive application for permission.

(3) Abridgment of time / Expedition:
The timetable set out is in accordance with CPR 54.8, the time given for service of the AOS being 21 days from the date of service of the claim form. The decision that the Claimant seeks to challenge on Judicial Review is the Defendant’s refusal to issue an EHCP. This is a decision that can be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (SEND) which is arguably better equipped to resolve issues of fact of the kind that arise in this case. It does not appear that the Claimant has sought to pursue their right to appeal the decision. Whilst not pre-empting any decision that may be made on the permission application, Judicial Review is a remedy of last resort, and on the face of it, the Claimant would appear to have an adequate alternative remedy.
However, given that there may be some explanation of which the court is as yet unaware why an appeal has not been pursued or why an appeal to the FTT is not considered to be an adequate remedy; and given that this case involves a child, it is appropriate that a decision whether or not to grant permission is considered at the earliest opportunity.

Signed: MS JUSTICE NORTON
Date: 6 January 2026