March 10, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003816

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

10 March 2026

Before:

Hugo Keith KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
FNC (by his Father and Litigation Friend FNH)

-v-

East Sussex County Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, and the Claimant’s Reply

IT IS ORDERED by Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, that

Permission is granted.
An order for anonymity is made:
(a) Pursuant to section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933:
(i) the name, address and the school of the Claimant 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 FNC.
(b) 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 Father and Litigation Friend’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant’s Father and Litigation Friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as FNH.
(c) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or his Father/Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of them in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(d) 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 and of his father/Litigation Friend;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or his father/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.
(e) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
Case Management Directions:
(a) 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.
(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 14 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) 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 Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
(e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
(f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
(g) The 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 date of the substantive hearing.
(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.
(i) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.
The full hearing be listed in the last two weeks of May 2026.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Permission. This Claim is made by one of the Claimant’s fathers, acting as a Litigation Friend. The Claimant is a 17-year-old child with various special educational needs arising from diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactive disorder and sensory processing difficulties, as well as significant social and emotional difficulties arising from childhood trauma. He has held an Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHC Plan”) maintained by the Defendant since 2017. Since 2019, section I of the EHC Plan has named an independent school, some 25 miles from the Claimant’s home address and it takes around 1 hour for the Claimant to travel from his home to the school. The claimant is not able to travel from home to school independently. In the academic year 24/25 he received home to school transport provided by the Defendant.

(2) In the December 2024 EHC Plan the Defendant stated that, from September 2025, the Claimant would attend a maintained college, rather than the independent school. His parents issued an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and that appeal was listed for hearing in December 2025. On 14 July 2025, the Defendant conceded that part of the appeal concerning section I of the EHC Plan, agreeing to continue to nominate the independent school. The Claimant accordingly continued to attend.

(3) In July 2025, the Claimant’s other father made an application for the continuation of home to school transport for the academic year 2025/26. This was refused on 21 August 2025, essentially on the basis that it did not meet the relevant criteria, because, as he did not have set working hours, the discretionary transport panel could not confirm if and when he would be unavailable to accompany the Claimant to and from college. The panel expected working hours to be arranged around supporting school transport when these are not fixed.

(4) A pre-action letter was sent on 26 August 2025, and the Defendant responded on 1 September 2025, pointing out that an alternative remedy existed, by way of an appeal. At the beginning of the academic term, the Claimant’s father took annual leave to transport the Claimant to school and, on occasion, arranged for the Claimant to sleep over at a friend’s house near the school. However he then became unable to drive following an accident.

(5) On 9 September 2025 the Claimant appealed the decision of 21 August 2025. On 2 October 2025 the stage 1 appeal was dismissed. On 6 October 2025, a stage 2 appeal was submitted to the Transport Appeal Panel. On 13 November 2025 the Stage 2 Panel met. However it considered that it did not have sufficient information (in the absence of a substantive response from the Claimant’s other father’s employer) as to the circumstances relating to the transport application, to make its decision at that time. Accordingly, the Panel adjourned to obtain further information from the parents. It was expected to reconvene on 10 December 2025.

(6) As at late October 2025 the Claimant was not able to attend school but was having to stay with friends when possible. By the Claim form filed on 23 October 2025, the Claimant’s father applied for judicial review of the decision of 21 August 2025, on the grounds that the decision was irrational and/or unlawful. He sought a mandatory order requiring the local authority to put into place suitable arrangements forthwith and/or an order quashing the decision and requiring reconsideration. The Claimant also sought an order for anonymity, and expedition of the timetable by way of an abridgement of time and/or a rolled up hearing.

(7) There has been an unfortunate delay in the processing of the application. Although the Claim was filed on 23 October 2025, it was only put before a single judge in the week commencing 8 December 2025. The elapse of time has, nevertheless, allowed the Defendant file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, which it did on 26 November 2025.

(8) The Defendant’s ‘Travel assistance policy for 16 – 19-year-olds with an Education Health and Care Plan’, dated August 2024, which covers its responsibilities in respect of travel assistance for students aged 16 to 19, provides for certain “gateway criteria”. These include the following: “a. The student must live in the LA area; b. The student must have an EHC Plan; c. The student must be attending the equivalent of a full-time educational course which allows for appropriate progression; d. The placement is the nearest suitable college to their home address and is named in the EHC Plan; e. The student does not have the ability to travel independently.” If the criteria are met, the local authority has the discretion to consider the circumstances of the student and the family and their broader network, to assess whether it is necessary to provide transport for the student.”

(9) The Claimant’s substantive grounds are arguable, given the Claimant’s inability to travel independently, the fact that one of his fathers (the Claimant’s Litigation Friend), is in full-time work in London and commutes there, and the fact that his other father, although only working 2 to 3 days a week, has no flexibility concerning his shifts on the days he does work and so would not be able to make himself available to drive the Claimant on those days. I also note that the Claimant’s special educational needs and his family situation have not changed since he was formerly in receipt of travel assistance. It is arguable that the Defendant’s decision did not properly consider and engage with the issues raised by the Claimant’s fathers.

(10) When the papers were placed before me on 11 December 2025, it was not clear whether the hearing of the Transport Appeal Panel on 10 December 2025 had been effective and whether the Claimant had obtained the relief that he sought. I directed the ACO to inquire of the parties what the position was. The Claimant’s solicitors contacted the ACO in late February 2026 to say the Claimant’s parents had received an email from the Defendant advising that, although the Stage 2 Transport Appeal Panel had met on 11 December 2025, it had reached no decision as it was awaiting further information. They invited the court to proceed to determine the issue of permission, given that the academic term had started and the Claimant remained without transport. There was no response from the Defendant.

(11) Permission is generally refused where an adequate alternative remedy is available: R (Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 677, §36; In re McAleenon [2024] UKSC 31, §50 per Lord Sales and Lord Stephens JJSC.; the Administrative Court Guide 2025, para 6.3.3.3. It is arguable here that no adequate alternative remedy is available. Permission is therefore granted.

(12) Anonymity. The Claimant seeks an order pursuant to section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 that, in any publication of this application, his details, the details of his Litigation Friend (one of his fathers), and details of the school are not disclosed. The Claimant is a vulnerable, disabled child with special educational needs. In respect of the Claimant, anonymity is plainly merited under section 39 in relation to his name, address and school, and I so order. It is also necessary to give anonymity to his father and Litigation Friend, in order to give effect to that order.

(13) Expedition. Given the Claimant’s circumstances, I order a degree of expedition.