HLG -v- Nottingham City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-BHM-000081

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

27 February 2026

BEFORE:

HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL

BETWEEN:

THE KING on the application of
HLG (a Child by HLR her Litigation Friend)

-v-

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  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 HLG; and
    (iii) the name of the Litigation Friend is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (iv) the Litigation Friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as HLR.
    (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 the Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or the 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 or the Litigation Friend;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or the Litigation Friend, 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. Interim relief, abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) Within 7 days of service of this Order the Defendant must either restore and fund tutor-led educational provision for the Claimant pending determination of this claim (and inform the Court that this has been done) or file and serve an Acknowledgement of Service and response to the application for interim relief.
    (b) The application must be referred immediately fur further directions (including for interim relief, further abridgement of time and expedition) on receipt of a response from the Defendant or in default after expiry of the period set out above in paragraph 2(a).
  3. Costs: Reserved.
  4. This Order has been made without a hearing. Any person affected may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of service of this Order upon them

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a child of compulsory school age. The claim relies on personal educational and medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to protect the Claimant’s identity it is necessary also to protect the identity of the Litigation Friend because of the familial relationship between the Litigation Friend and the Claimant. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Interim relief, abridgement of time and expedition:
a. The Claimant is a child of compulsory school age who is not currently receiving education. Until November/December 2025 she was receiving face to face tutor led education at home but the tutor assigned to her withdrew from providing this service. The proposed interim educational provision for the Claimant consists of online or remote provision.
b. The Defendant is the local authority with the duty to make educational provision for the Claimant pursuant to its statutory duty under section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996. This provides that “Each local authority in England shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them”. The Claimant’s position is that because of her particular special education needs, remote provision is not “suitable” and so the statutory duty can only be discharged by restoring and funding tutor-led provision.
c. I grant the application for urgent consideration because the Claimant is not currently receiving any education and her welfare is being compromised in consequence.
d. The Claimant seeks restoration of the previous provision which appears to have ended due to practical obstacles and not due to matters of principle. If the Defendant restores the previous provision of tutor-led education for the Claimant voluntarily (including, if so advised, on the basis of being without prejudice to any defence to the claim), then the application for interim relief need not be considered further and the claim can proceed in the usual way. If the Defendant is unable or unwilling to restore the previous provision, then the application for interim relief and/or further expedition must be considered further. In those circumstances the Defendant must have a fair opportunity to respond to the application and the claim before it can be justly determined.
e. The timetable provided by these directions strikes a fair balance between the competing interests of the Claimant in a swift determination of the claim (and application) and the Defendant’s right to be heard. Time has been abridged accordingly. I am not satisfied that the urgency here is so great that the application should be considered before the Defendant has been given a fair opportunity to respond to it.