FTN -v- Staffordshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-BHM-000004

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 January 2026

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
FTN
(a child by his Litigation Friend, FRT)

-v-

Staffordshire County Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for expedition

After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as FTN and his Litigation Friend as FRT.
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. FRT is appointed as the Claimant’s Litigation Friend
  3. Time for the Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service is abridged to 4pm on 19th January 2026.
  4. The Claimant shall file a Reply by 4pm on 26th January 2026.
  5. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is adjourned until permission.
  6. Costs in the Case

Reasons

  1. This is a claim relating to a disabled child with an Education and Healthcare Plan (‘EHCP’) managed by the Defendant. I shall anonymise the Claimant as FTN and appoint his relative FRT as Litigation Friend.
  2. FRT has drafted the claim himself and it does not contain the usual detail and documents which the Administrative Court needs to make a decision. It contends the Defendant has failed to make the required provision under the EHCP. Indeed, FRT suggests the Claimant has not had an appropriate education from the Defendant for six years with the parents undertaking all of that, alongside care for their other disabled children, only in receipt of Universal Credit. The family’s life is obviously very tough.
  3. Nevertheless, Judicial Review considers the lawfulness of public authority conduct, rather than matters that could be considered by an internal complaint with the Defendant, by Local Government Ombudsman or the First-Tier Tribunal. The allegations of unlawfulness in the present case are slightly more clearly set out in the Request for urgent Consideration than in the Claim Form. I shall expedite the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service which should address the contents of both documents. I will then order a Reply. That will then provide the Court with the necessary information to consider whether to grant permission and interim relief.

    Signed: HHJ Tindal