FZH -v- Milton Keynes City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003911

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

26 March 2026

Before:

Mr CMG Ockelton

Between:

THE KING on the application of [FZH]
(by his litigation friend [FRD])

-v-

Milton Keynes City Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY MR C M G OCKELTON sitting as a judge of the High Cour

  1. Litigation Friend: The claimant’s mother, named in the entitlement, being a suitable person and willing to act, is appointed as his litigation friend for the purposes of these proceedings.
  2. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction
    (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: his litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as FRD.
    (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 any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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.
    (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.
  3. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence as may be set out in a Schedule of Costs filed and served by the Defendant within 7 days of the date this Order is served. Although the claimant asserts in the claim form that legal aid has been granted, and that the certificate is enclosed, neither statement appears to be correct. The following paragraph [3] acts on that conclusion.
  5. Further provision as to costs:
    (a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):
    (i) If the Defendant files and serves a Schedule of Costs, then within 21 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 4 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum claimed within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
    (b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):
    (i) Paragraph 4 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party: – the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or – permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.
    (ii) If the Defendant files and serves a Schedule of Costs, and if the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 4 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 21 days
    after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
    – the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
  6. 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 60 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 Claimant 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.
    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.
    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
    (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 Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
    (e) 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.
    (f) 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. Judicial Review claims have to be made promptly and in any event within three months of the decision under challenge. Although the defendant’s default is said by the claimant to be ‘ongoing’, there are references to events many years ago. Further, because of the nature of the remedies available in public law claims, it is necessary to concentrate on what realistically can be done to correct any established defaults now. This claim was filed on 6 November 2025. It is too late to challenge decisions made before 7 August 2025. In any event, there was a Tribunal decision dealing with the claimant’s circumstances and needs in May 2025, which essentially superseded any complaints the claimant may have had up to then.
  2. The defendant has a complaints procedure, and there is the possibility of reference to the Local Government Ombudsman if the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily. Judicial Review is a remedy of last resort and the availability of any other means of resolving and complaint will always count against allowing a Judicial Review claim to continue. For this reason permission would be refused on the matters dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 7 below even if the claim had been arguable.
  3. Following the Tribunal’s decision, and the defendant’s acceptance that a EOTIS package was appropriate, the defendant issued an amended plan providing for EOTIS; and the defendant secured providers of suitable EOTIS. It is for the defendant to decide how to discharge its duties to provide educational provision for the claimant. Nothing that the claimant says in these proceedings shows any arguable case that the package arranged by the defendant is not a lawful response to his assessed needs. For these reasons the claim that the defendant is in breach of its obligations under s 19 of the Education Act 1996 is not arguable.
  4. The claim that there are not being, or have not been, reviews of the plan is contrary to the facts and not arguable. There have been reviews and it is not apparent that there has been any failure to comply with the duty to review, particularly within the period of time that can be the subject of review in these proceedings, issued on the date they were. There was effectively a review and re-setting of the plan as part of the Tribunal’s decision, and there has since been another review.
  5. The claim that the defendant misrepresented the claimant’s parents’ request for schools refers to events in 2022 and 2023, well beyond the reach of this claim, and which were dealt with through the defendant’s complaints process.
  6. The claims that the defendant unlawfully shared personal data, failed to provide a personal budget, and failed to provide compensation for free school meals missed because his mother had taken him out of school, appear to be based on a misapprehension of the relevant law. None of them is arguable.
  7. The claim relating to the ‘Disability Assessment’ is too vague to give rise to any argument that the current assessment, authorised on 2 October 2025, is unlawful.