GLF -v- Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderOrder

Claim number: AC-2026-BHM-000042

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

9 February 2026

Before:

HHJ Tindal

Between:

THE KING on the application of GLF

-v-

WALSALL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

and

RYECROFT SCHOOL
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for interim relief

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 GLF.
    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. The Second Interested Party is discharged as not a proper party.
  3. Time for the Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service is abridged to 4pm on 23rd February 2026.
  4. The Claimant shall file a Reply by 4pm on 1st March 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 aged 7 who attends the Interested Party school with an Education and Healthcare Plan (‘EHCP’) managed by the Defendant. The Claimant is her father. Whilst the child should have been the claimant and her father a litigation friend, he has sufficient standing to claim and I accept the claim and anonymise him.  
  2. The Claimant has drafted the claim himself and sets out various grounds of challenge in relation to the educational provision to his daughter (but does not properly explain the inclusion of the second Interested Party, whom I discharge). However, the Defendant needs the opportunity to respond before the Court considers the application for interim relief.