GRN -v- Worcestershire Council (anonymity order)
Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-000425
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
11 March 2026
Before:
His Honour Judge Rawlings
Between:
THE KING on the application of
GRN
-v-
Worcestershire Council
Order
Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendants Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence
On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order, expedition of the final hearing and permission to rely on a Reply which exceeds 6 pages and additional evidence
ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS
- 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 is 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 GRN.
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.
2. Reply and additional evidence:
The Claimant has permission to rely upon his Reply notwithstanding that it exceeds 6 pages and his witness statement, both dated 6 February 2026
3. Permission to apply for judicial review:
Permission is granted on all grounds.
4. Case Management Directions:
a) The Defendant 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 14 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 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 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 3 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
f) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible. The hearing will be listed on the first available date after 56 days.
g) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.
OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS
1. Anonymity: The Claimant is a vulnerable child with special educational needs. The public interest in knowing the identity of the Claimant is outweighed by the potential harm to the Claimant if his identity became public. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
2. Reply and additional evidence: The Defendant’s AOS and Summary Grounds of Defence are lengthy and contain numerous factual assertions which the Claimant disputes. It is appropriate in these circumstances to allow the Claimant’s Reply to exceed 6 pages and the Claimant to deal with the factual allegations by witness statement.
3. Permission: Whilst the Defendant disputes that it has failed to comply with its duty to secure the provisions set out in the EHCP and claims that the claim is academic, the Defendant accepts that not all the provision has yet been secured. It is arguable that the Defendant is in breach of its immediate duty to secure the provision set out in the EHCP and that merely commissioning it and reference to the difficulty it has experienced in securing it does not mean that the Defendant has complied with its duty or that the claim is academic.
4. Expedition: The claimant asks for the final hearing to be expedited. A shortened timetable for procedural steps leading to the final hearing has been set out with a direction that the final hearing should be listed on the first available date after 56 days which recognises the prejudice caused to a child by any delay in providing them with the educational support to which they are entitled.