HAF and another -v- The London Borough of Hillingdon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-004755

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

12 March 2026

Before:

DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
(1) HAF (by his mother and litigation friend HWV)
(2) HWV

-v-

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON

and

FIELD INFANT 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 Summary Grounds of Defence filed by the Defendant and the Interested Party

ORDER BY DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC

  1. 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 Claimants’ names areto be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as, respectively, HAF and HWV.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 Claimants;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. 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 £3,500. No order as to the costs of the Interested Party.
  4. 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 Form order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
  5. 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. As to anonymity, I understand that the Court office has anonymised the claim administratively. A formal anonymity order is required because the First Claimant is a child and the claim concerns his personal medical information in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Second Claimant requires anonymity to avoid indirect identification of the First Claimant. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. The Claim has become academic because the First Claimant is now in education at a different school and I can discern no properly articulated claim for damages arising from the historic matters complained of.
  3. The Claim is very significantly out of time, being in substance a challenge to a care plan put in place by the Second Defendant (‘the School’) in September 2024, the School’s practice of marking the First Claimant as absent without authorisation which began in December 2024, when the Second Claimant ceased sending the First Claimant to the School. Any decision by the First Defendant refusing to provide alternative education was communicated to the Second Claimant, at the latest, by 22 July 2025.
  4. Given its (now) academic nature, there are no grounds for extending the time for bringing the claim.
  5. The Claimants had a range of alternative remedies they could have pursued, either against the School itself (which is not a Defendant) or the Secretary of State for Education: see Defendant’s SGD’s at [22]-[23] and the School’s SGD’s at [9]-[15].
  6. I have reduced the Defendant’s costs somewhat. I do not consider that it was reasonable for all the solicitors’ work to be done by a Grade A solicitor.
  7. No remedy is sought against the School and the School’s position is that it was inappropriate to join it as an interested party. In those circumstances, it could simply have stated this position or declined to file an AOS and SGDs. I do not see why it should recover its costs of taking what it appears to consider (with good reason) an
    unnecessary step.