HMW -v- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000971

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

2 March 2026

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Kimblin

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HMW
(By his mother and litigation friend HGY)

-v-

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for abridgement/expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, including his Form N463, the witness evidence and the protocol correspondence

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN

  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 HMW;
    (iii) the Claimant’s litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as HGY.
    (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. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) Abridgement of time for the service of the Acknowledgment of Service is refused;
    (b) Consideration of the Claimant’s application for expedition is adjourned until the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond via its Acknowledgment of Service;
    (c) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service must be filed and served in accordance with CPR 54.8;
    (d) Any Reply must be filed and served in accordance with CPR 54.8A;
    (e) The papers are to be referred to a deputy judge promptly thereafter.
  3. Costs: There be no order as to the costs of the N463 application

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a young child with additional needs. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Abridgement of time/expedition: The period for service of the AoS is 21 days. The Claimant obtained legal aid on 2nd February and sought immediate consideration of his claim on 27th February. It is inequitable to seek to constrain the Defendant’s opportunity to respond to a claim to less that 21 days when the Claimant’s advisors have themselves taken longer than that to bring the matter to court. I have also had regard to the chronology of the protocol correspondence which does not speak of the urgency which is associated with this N463 application. I therefore decline to abridge time. Whether, and if so to what extent, expedition should be granted is a matter to be assessed in the light of both parties’ cases and having regard to the impact on others who seek a portion of the Defendant’s and the Court’s resources.
(3) Costs: The N463 application was not justified. It was sufficient to apply for expedition on the Claim Form and to provide evidence in support. The matter would then have entered the list appropriately. The costs of the application for immediate consideration shall lie with the Claimant in any event.