HGS -v- Manchester City Council (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-BHM-000097

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

12 March 2026

Before:

His Honour Judge Charman      

Between:

THE KING on the application of  
HGS

-v-

Manchester City Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the bundle of documents lodged by the Claimant on 6 March 2026  

ORDER BY HHJ CHARMAN (Sitting as a High Court Judge)

  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 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 HGS.
    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. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is dismissed.
  3. This matter will be transferred to the Administrative Court in the Northern Region unless an objection is received within 7 days from the date of service of this Order.
  4. If an objection to transfer is received, it shall be referred to the Honourable Mr Justice Eyre as the Liaison Judge for the Administrative Court on the Midland Circuit for his determination of whether the matter should be transferred.
  5. The court has disposed of an application without a hearing under CPR 3.3.  Any party affected by this Order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of the service of this Order on that party.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity:
  2. The Claimant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Council to refuse to progress complaints by him relating to the safeguarding and welfare of his children. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  3. He seeks urgent relief in the form of the provision of documents which were created (or which he says should have been created) by the Council in respect of those complaints and for the abridgement of time for the filing by the Council of its Acknowledgment of Service.
  4. It is highly exceptional to grant interim relief of the sort applied for before the court has heard from the Respondent, as stated in The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 at section 16.5.1.  This is not such an exceptional case.  Further, applying the modified American Cyanamid test as summarised at section 16.6 of The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025, based on current material, there appears to be a real issue to be tried but it is not clear that there is a strong prima facie case. 
  5. The claim is not brought on behalf of the children but by the Claimant by way of assertion of his rights as their father with parental responsibility.  It is therefore not clear on the material currently before the Court why damages will not be an adequate remedy for him. 
  6. The claim relates to concerns first raised by the Claimant on 27 October 2025 and renewed on 22 January 2026.  The benefit of granting the interim relief sought now rather than when the substance of the claim is considered is not made out.  The material before the Court indicates that the material sought may contain details of the location of the mother of the children or material from which that location may be capable of being identified.  It also indicates that there is in existence an order made by the Family Court preventing the Claimant from knowing the location of the mother and the children.  In those circumstances, the balance of convenience is against the ordering of the provision of the documents sought by the Claimant by way of interim relief.  It appears that the Claimant wish to obtain those documents at least in part for use at a hearing before the Family Court on or about 25 March 2026.  An application in judicial review proceedings is usually not an appropriate means of obtaining documents for the purpose of their utilisation in proceedings before the Family Court.
  7. For all of these reasons, it is not just, convenient and proportionate to grant such interim relief as the risk of injustice is greater if such relief were granted then if it is withheld.
  8. The Claimant can renew his application for interim relief before the judge who considers the application for permission should he wish to do so.
  9. The claim form was served on 10 March so the time for the filing of the Acknowledgement of Service expires on 31 March 2026. Consideration has been given to abridging time for its service.  However, as:
    i) This Order is likely not to be treated as served until 16 March; and
    ii) The documents filed indicate that the referral made by the Claimant which gives rise to the dispute was made on 27 October 2025 and renewed on 22 January 2026;
    only an abridgment of time of a few working days would be practicable to give the Respondent reasonable time to consider and prepare its response and the material before the Court does not indicate that such a short abridgment would be of any real benefit to the Claimant so as to outweigh the need for the Respondent to have sufficient time to prepare and file its Acknowledgment of Service. 
  10. A question of the transfer of proceedings transfer is to be determined taking into account the circumstances of the particular case and having regard to the matters set out in PD54C paragraph 2.5 as applicable to those circumstances.
  11. However, regard is to be had to the general expectation that Administrative Court cases will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connexion.
  12. Due weight is to be given to that general expectation and in that respect I adopt and have regard to the considerations articulated by Fordham J in R (Fortt) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme  [2022] EWHC 152 (Admin) at [6] and in R (Khyam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 993 (Admin) at [5] – [6].
  13. It appears on the material filed that the claim has the closest connection to the Northern Region as the Council whose decision is challenged in based there and the children who are the subject of the decision challenged reside there.  The fact that the Claimant resides in the Midland Region does not outweigh those close connections with the Northern Region.