GKR -v- London Borough of Lewisham (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002488

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

29 April 2026

Before:

Matthew Butt KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
GKR
(by her litigation friend GXB)

-v-

London Borough of Lewisham

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, the Claimant’s Reply and response to the court

ORDER BY MATTHEW BUTT KC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review:

Permission is granted on all grounds.

2. Anonymity: 

the identity of the Claimant (GKR) and her litigation friend (GXB) must not be disclosed in these proceedings

    The Claimant and her litigation friend are to be referred to orally and in writing by the ciphers set out at (a) above.

    Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identities of the Claimant or her litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of those persons in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

    Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

    The Claimant 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 IP;

    If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her litigation friend, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; and

    Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case or other document in the case.

    3. Case Management Directions:

    (a) The Defendant and any party served with the claim form who intends to participate in this claim must, within 21 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 21 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 28 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 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

    (f) The Defendant and Interested Party may 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.

    (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 two hours. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

    OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

    1. An anonymity order is required in this case to protect the Claimant’s Article 8 rights as she is a child and the claim contains medical information relating to her. To protect the Claimant, the order must also cover her mother. The Claimant should pay careful attention to the need to provide a redacted copy of the documents served to have full protection of this anonymity order (see above).  
    2. The Claimant alleges a breach of the statutory duty under Section 40 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHC
    3. It is agreed that the First Tier Tribunal (SEND) issued a decision dated 06 March 2025 requiring amendments to C’s EHCP and a final EHCP was issued on 11 April 2025. The Defendant does not seem to dispute that it failed to deliver the EHCP by 28 August 2026 (when it filed summary grounds of defence (SGD)). Within the SGD, D asked C to be patient and said it was doing all that it could to secure delivery and this would commence in September 2025.
    4. It is unfortunate that it took so long for this matter to be referred for a permission decision. When the case was allocated to me, I asked for an update from the parties as permission should not be granted if the claim has become academic.
    5. The Claimant informed the court that the plan was not being delivered or implemented in accordance with the requirements.
    6. In particular I was told that:

    (i) there was temporary delivery between September and October 2025;
    (ii) between October and February 2025, speech and language therapy was not delivered;
    (iii) from February to present, speech and language therapy provision has resumed on a limited basis, but has not been delivered in accordance with the requirements specified in the EHCP.

    1. This is not an altogether satisfactory response. I have not been told to what extent delivery from February 2026 has been non-compliant. I have not been provided with any response from the Defendant.
    2. I am just persuaded to grant permission as it is arguable that (i) there was non-compliance between April 2025 and February 2026 and (ii) I am accepting the Claimant’s representation that there is material non-compliance to date.
    3. The Claimant is under a duty to notify the court immediately if a position is or has been reached in which the Defendant is complying with the EHCP and the claim has become academic. As to what compliance means, this court deals with failures to comply with legal obligations by public bodies which affect a person’s rights. The Court is not able to conduct a rolling review of the EHCP or to intervene if there are unavoidable problems with delivery from time to time.

    Signed: Matthew Butt KC
    Date: 29 April 2026