GBL and HAM -v- London Borough of Bromley (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004655

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:

The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

The King
on the application of
(1) GBL
(2) HAM

-v-

London Borough of Bromley

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service

ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon

  1. Anonymity

(i) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: (a) the Claimants’ names, and the names of the First Claimant’s 3 children, and the name of the father of the youngest child, are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and (b) the First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as GBL, the Second Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as HAM, the eldest child is to be referred to orally and in writing as INC, the middle child is to be referred to orally and in writing as KSL, and the youngest child is to be referred to orally and in writing as LKE, and LKE’s father is to be referred to orally and in writing as NWX.

(ii) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants, the 3 children, or the father of LKE, or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(iii) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (a) 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 Claimants, the 3 children, or the father of LKE; (b) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to their identification, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; (c) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(iv) Any person wishing to vary or discharge the Order for Anonymity (paragraphs (i)-(ii) above) must make an application, served on each of the parties.

  1. Stay: the application for a stay of the Initial Child Protection Conference schedule for 15 January 2026 is refused.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: No order as to costs.
  4. Renewal directions: Where the Claimants make 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 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimants consider 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 Claimants 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 Claimants fail 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 Claimants 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 Claimants 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) The Defendant local authority has initiated an investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 with respect to the First Claimant’s children. An Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) was scheduled for 5 January 2025, a date which clashed with an imminent hearing before the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in respect of one of the children. The ICPC has been pushed back to 15 January 2026.

(2) The Claimants challenge the lawfulness of the initiation of the section 47 investigation, and applied for disclosure of certain documents that relate to the investigation. The Claimants also seek a stay of the ICPC. The Claimants have asserted that the Defendant has failed to comply with the Order that I made on 24 December 2025 (sealed on 29 December 2025) for disclosure.

(3) I make an order for anonymity in this case as it involves circumstances relating to three children under the age of 18.

(4) I refuse the application for permission and the grant of the stay. The Defendant has provided cogent reasons for the decision to initiate the section 47 investigation, and there is no basis for the stay of the IPCC. It does not seem to me that the Defendant has failed to comply with the Order.

(5) The first Claimant has three children, a son who is 2 years’ old (anonymised as LKE), a son who is 12 years’ old (anonymised as KSL) and a daughter who is 13 years’ old (anonymised as INC). The daughter (INC) has additional needs and an EHC plan. A hearing before the SEND to consider the specialist school she should attend was due to take place on 6 January 2026. This has now been adjourned to 27 February 2026. The second Claimant is the biological father of the older children. NWX is the biological father of the youngest child LKE. NWX was married to the first Claimant, but the marriage broke down. Domestic abuse was alleged against NWX, and undertakings were accepted from him in 2024.

(6) The children have been known to the Defendant’s Children Social Care since 2023 due to concerns regarding the first Claimant’s mental health, and with further concerns regarding domestic abuse perpetrated by NWX. In August 2024, the Defendant completed a Child and Family Assessment in October 2024 and came up with a Child in Need (CIN) Plan. A CIN meeting was held, and the plan (Working Together) was agreed.

(7) In January 2025, the Defendant received an anonymous referral raising concerns regarding the children’s welfare. On 27 October 2025, the Defendant completed a further Child and Family Assessment. The allocated social worker, Simon Howell, expressed concerns regarding the children’s welfare and made a recommendation in the assessment for a strategy discussion to be undertaken and for consideration due to safeguarding concerns.

(8) A strategy meeting was held on 17 November 2025 which recommended that a section 47 investigation be undertaken. The key concerns noted by the meeting were “emotional harm, neglect, and complex family dynamics.
A coordinated multi-agency approach is required”. The matter was reviewed by all agencies on 10 December 2025.

(9) The section 47 assessment was completed on 15 December 2025, with no engagement from both Claimants. NWX was approached for his views on the welfare of his child, LKE, for whom he holds parental responsibility. The outcome of the section 47 assessment was a recommendation that the matter escalate to an ICPC.

(10) On 16 December 2025, the Defendant wrote to the first Claimant inviting her to attend the ICPC on 6 January 2026. It was rescheduled to 5 January 2026 when the first Claimant objected because it clashed with the SEND Tribunal hearing on 6 January 2026. The matter was subsequently rearranged to 15 January 2026.

(11) The Claimants issued a claim for judicial review claim, challenging the Defendant’s decision to initiate a section 47 enquiry, and for failing to notify the Claimants of the enquiry for 29 days, and scheduling an ICPC for 5 January 2026.

(12) The Claimants contend that the decision to initiate and maintain the section 47 enquiry was irrational and involved procedural impropriety, as the decision was reached in an “investigative vacuum” without mandatory interviews and while ignoring unanimous clinical evidence from Bromley Healthcare (16 December 2025) and St Luke’s (18 December 2025).

(13) The Claimants challenge the Defendant’s decision to refuse an adjournment of the ICPC, on the basis of the conflict with the SEND hearing, and for failing to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) to take account of the First Claimant’s neurodiversity (ADHD).

(14) The Claimants challenge the Defendant’s failure to disclose material evidence: in particular, the refusal to provide the full transcript and minutes of the 13 November 2025 Strategy Meeting. They also complain of a decision to disseminate a flawed report: the report of Simon Howell dated 12 November 2025.

(15) The grounds of challenge are, in my judgment, not arguable. Nor is there any basis for a stay of the ICPC. Postponement of the ICPC would impede the ability of the Defendant to carry out its statutory child protection duties.

(16) The date of the ICPC has now been changed so as not to coincide with the SEND hearing. Further, documents have been disclosed by the Defendant which should enable the Claimants to participate fully in the ICPC.

(17) The Claimants were not denied the opportunity to participate and contribute information to the investigation process; they declined to be involved. Further, the decision to investigate under section 47 was properly and rationally made. The evidence available to the Defendant was indicative of positive parenting but also raised issues that would be of concern to a reasonable local authority. That decision was reviewed by all agencies at the meeting on the 10 December 2025, including from contributors who made positive observations in relation to parenting. Furthermore, the Defendant’s investigations and assessment of the family are not complete and will be the subject of review at the ICPC itself before any decision is taken as to whether further intervention in the family’s life is justified.

(18) There has been no breach of section 149 of the 2010 Act, as the date of the ICPC has been re-arranged. The Defendant has also indicated that it would consider any proposals that the Claimants might make to ensure that they are properly supported in relation to disability-related communication traits. The Defendant has indicated that it will ensure that any materials the Claimants wish the meeting to consider are made available. There was also no breach of the 2010 Act by attempting to arrange a meeting with the First Claimant as part of the section 47 investigations.

(19) There has been no material breach by the Defendant of the Working Together to Safeguard Children timelines. Following a strategy discussion on 17 November 2025, the Social Worker, Simon Howell, notified the mother by email dated 27 November 2025 that he had been tasked with conducting child protection enquiries. This constitutes notice of the section 47 enquiry which was being carried out on a multi-agency basis.

(20) There has also been no arguable impropriety in sharing information with NWX. He has parental responsibility for one of the children.

(21) Further, in any event, if the ICPC decides that some further intervention in the Claimants’ family life is called for, then there will have to be an application made by the Defendant to the Court. This will lead to oversight and scrutiny of the process, and will give the Claimants automatic entitlement to legal aid representation without charge.

Signed: Mr Justice Sheldon
Date: 13 January 2026