HEX -v- Cambridgeshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001255

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

7 May 2026

Before:

Richard Wright KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
HEX
(by his mother and litigation friend, HYD)

-v-

Cambridgeshire County Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY RICHARD WRIGHT KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  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 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 HEX and his mother and litigation friend as HYD.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant and his mother and litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and his mother and litigation friend 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.

  1. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 35 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 21 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 the 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 Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) 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 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) 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.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Matters have moved on significantly since this Claim was issued. In particular the Defendant has, on 20th March 2026, submitted the final EHC and admits a breach of its statutory duty. In those circumstances in my judgment any need for urgent consideration falls away.

(2) The remaining question for me now is whether the entire claim is rendered academic by these developments such that permission should be refused. The Claimant submits that the Claim is not academic as it raises issues of significant public importance relating to local authorities’ compliance with mandatory EHP timescales for vulnerable children. The defendant argues in short form that permission should be refused, that declaratory relief is a pointless outcome and that no wider issue is engaged with the Claim.

(3) I reject that submission and grant permission. I note when doing so that in JSC v Cambridgeshire County Council Duncan Atkinson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge granted permission in a similar claim to this one and rejected the proposition that it was academic applying Salem principles. The Judge found, contrary to submissions advanced by the defendant and similar to those advanced here, that there was a wider public interest in hearing the Claim and granted the declaratory relief sought.

Signed: Richard Wright KC

Date: 7th May 2026