GLH -v- Kent County Council and Charing Church of England Primary School (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-000148

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:

Mr CMG Ockelton
sitting as a judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
GLH
(by his litigation friend, GLZ)
(Claimant)

-v-

Kent County Council
(Defendant)

and

Charing Church of England Primary School
(Interested Party)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s response to the application for interim relief

ORDER BY MR CMG OCKELTON sitting as a judge of the High Court

  1. Litigation Friend: The Claimant’s mother is appointed as his litigation friend.
  2. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    (i) the Claimant’s name and that of his litigation friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as GLH and his litigation friend as GLZ.
    (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 may 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. Interim Relief: The application for interim relief is refused.
  5. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,257.00.
  6. 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) Within 14 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 5 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 5 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified 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 5 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 Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 5 should not
    be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 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.
  1. 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 30 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. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order above have not been sought by any party but are appropriate in the circumstances. The claimant is a child and the claim relies on personal information. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 2.
  2. The defendant’s statutory duty to provide education under s 19 of the Education Act 1996 is not in play as the claimant is not yet of compulsory school age. That is a complete answer to the claim insofar as it is based directly on s 19, and is the reason why the order sought for interim relief would be wholly inappropriate in the terms sought.
  3. It is of course entirely reasonable for the defendant, and the interested party, to indicate that they will await medical evidence before making the decisions the claimant seeks. It is primarily for the defendant to decide what medical evidence is required, and what assessment to make. At that point, and not arguably before then, it may become apparent that the claimant may be a person with a protected characteristic. These proceedings are not, and cannot be, an appeal against the defendant’s decisions in relation to the assessment of the claimant and appropriate provision for him. Any such challenge belongs to the Tribunal.
  4. In that context in my judgment it is not arguable that the defendant has done (or failed to do) anything in breach of its public law duties, or its duties under the Equality Act 2010. Its approach appears to have been a proper response to the assessments it has so far made, and in accordance with its guidance.

Signed: CMG Ockelton

Date: 29th April 2026