HEN -v- Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LDS-000067

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

20 March 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
HEN
By his Mother and Litigation Friend HNG

-v-

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, anonymity and expedition

Following consideration of the JR Claim dated 12 March 2026, the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and Grounds and bundle of documents

ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE:

  1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted as follows.
    (a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “HEN” and his mother and Litigation Friend, who is hereby appointed as such, as “HNG”.
    (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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    (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) The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 20 March 2026 and any application by a non party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that order.”
    (e) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
    (f) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk
  2. The case is suitable for expedition, having regard to the age of the Claimant and the adverse impact of any failures (which the Court notes are disputed) in provision of his education.
  3. The time for the Defendant to serve and file their Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds is abridged to 7 days.
  4. The matter is certified as fit for expedition. The application for permission to apply for judicial review shall be considered by a Judge on the papers within 14 days after receipt of the Acknowledgement of Service. If granted, the Judge will determine the appropriate timetable for the hearing.
  5. The parties shall have liberty to apply to vary or set aside this order on two working days’ notice to the other parties.
  6. Costs reserved.

    Reasons

    1. The Claimant is an 11 year old child (DOB 16 March 2015) with complex special educational needs, including a diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder and dyspraxia. The Claimant struggles significantly with his mental health and has significant speech and language needs which affect his ability to communicate with and understand others. This case concerns sensitive details of his health and education. The case can be fully reported without him being named. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice made in paragraph 1 of the order.
    2. The Claimant is currently enrolled at Kiora Hall, a specialist independent school. Since 1 October 2025, he has not been able to attend due to severe anxiety. A CAMHS clinician has assessed him and advises that school has become a significant emotional trigger for him, causing considerable distress. Alternative measures, such as worksheets at home or online educational provision, have been unsuccessful.
    3. The Defendant has issued a new EHCP dated 12 February 2026 identifying a different school, King Edwin Secondary School, for the Claimant to attend from September 2026 but the Claimant is currently not able to access any educational provision.
    4. The Claimant’s case is that the special educational provision set out in his Education and Health Care Plan dated January 2021 is not being delivered by the Defendant so as to meet his needs, contrary to section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, section 19 of the Education Act 1996 and Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR.
    5. The Defendant denies any breach. The Defendant’s case is that all reasonable and proportionate efforts have been made to secure the educational provisions specified in the Claimant’s EHCP. Kiora Hall has not advised that it is unable to meet the Claimant’s needs and the Defendant has advised the school to provide a bespoke package of education for him.
    6. Given the age and vulnerability of the Claimant, particularly given his forthcoming transition to secondary education from September 2026, it is appropriate that any ongoing dispute between the parties as to provision of necessary services and support should be determined by the Court on an expedited basis. However, this is a complex case and it is necessary for careful consideration to be given for appropriate measures that could and/or should be put in place to meet the Claimant’s needs.