HNC -v- Surrey County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000167

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

26 February 2026

Before:

Hugo Keith KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HNC (through his Mother and Litigation Friend HNW

-v-

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, including the applications of 22 December 2025 and 18 February 2026, and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance and the Claimant’s Reply

IT IS ORDERED by Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, that:

  1. An order for anonymity is made:
    (a) Pursuant to section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933:
    (i) the name, address and the school of the Claimant are 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 HNC.
    (b) 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 mother and litigation friend’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant’s mother and litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as HNW.
    (c) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or his mother/litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of them in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (d) 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 and of his mother/litigation friend;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or his mother/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.
    (e) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. The Claimant’s application of 18 February 2026 to rely upon the Second Witness Statement of HNW is granted.
  3. Permission is granted on all grounds.
  4. The full hearing is to be listed on 18 May 2026.
  5. Costs are in the case.
  6. Case Management Directions:
    (a) The Defendant must, within 28 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 21 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 14 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 7 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) The Claimant is currently 10 years old. He has left hemiplegia cerebral palsy, ADHD, ASD, mild-moderate attention and listening difficulties, mild difficulties in his understanding of language which is also impacted by his attention and listening skills and moderate difficulties in his use of language. He has special educational needs. In September 2024, following a change in classroom and teacher, the Claimant’s anxiety around attending his school (a specialised primary-aged school for children with complex learning and additional needs) and leaving the house increased to an extent that he entirely refused to attend school. He has not attended since September 2024.
(2) An Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) was issued on 17 May 2024 following annual review. By virtue of s. 42 (2) of the Children and Families Act 2014, the Defendant was under a duty to secure the provision in the EHCP within that plan. Following the Claimant ceasing to attend school, the annual review was not progressed and the EHCP was not updated. A number of support meetings were, however, held, and, in May 2025, the Claimant was assessed by an educational psychologist. A report was provided and, on 20 June 2025, an annual review took place. At the annual review, the School confirmed that an immediate change of placement was required. It was recommended that the EHCP be amended to reflect the conclusions in the 20 May 2025 educational psychology report.
(3) Educational provision recommenced on 8 September 2025 with a professional from an alternative educational provider, Nudge Education, attending the family home (paid for by the school). Although it took time for a rapport to be built up, the Claimant now works with the professional for 6 hours a week and is keen for the provision to increase. At the same time his mother is keen to introduce adult-led activities outside of the family home.
(4) Following a complaint by his mother to the local authority that the annual review had not been responded to, the council assured her, as part of its stage 1 complaint process, that it would complete the review, and it offered compensation. Its stage 1 complaint findings were not, however, accepted by her. A letter before claim was sent to the Defendant on 24 October 2025 as a final EHCP had yet to be issued. It stated that the Defendant had acted unlawfully in an identifiable number of ways. A draft EHCP was provided on 06 November 2025. The Claimant’s mother provided feedback on the draft EHCP on 18 November 2025 and, on 24 November 2025, the Defendant confirmed that it would provide a response with regards to “interim provision” by 27 November 2025.
(5) By his claim, brought through his mother and litigation friend on 23 December 2025, the Claimant argues that the Council (a) failed to adhere to the statutory timescales following an annual review in breach of regulation 20(1) of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014; (b) failed to provide a full-time education in breach of its duties under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996; and (c) failed to secure special educational provision under s. 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. He seeks a number of declarations concerning the unlawfulness of the Defendant’s actions, as well as mandatory orders requiring the Defendant to finalise the contents of the EHCP and make suitable education provision further to s. 19 of the Education Act 1996.
(6) The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds, and served witness evidence, in which it is made clear that the Defendant accepts that it had not delivered the provision contained in the EHCP, that it had failed to comply with the statutory timescale for issuing an annual review, and had apologised and offered compensation through the complaints process. A final EHCP was issued on 21 January 2026.
(7) Accordingly, the Defendant resists the claim for judicial review on the basis that the claim is now partly academic since an EHCP has been issued, the declarations sought will merely confirm what has already been accepted, and mandatory relief will only mandate that which is already in train.
(8) The Council states the hope that a long term readmission plan can be implemented so that the Claimant can return to school successfully. It confirms that the Defendant is seeking to deliver an interim package of provision whilst he remains out of school, including additional home tutoring and additional interventions. It also points to the ability of the Claimant, by way of alternative remedy, to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman or to complain to the Secretary of State under s 496 of the Education Act 1996. I presume that an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) under section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014, which possibility neither party has referred to, would not be an appropriate alternative remedy because the Claimant’s complaint is essentially concerned with the proper discharge of the Defendant’s duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide educational provision otherwise than at school, as opposed to the detail of the contents of the EHCP.
(9) I grant permission on all grounds. Whilst I acknowledge that a final ECHP has been issued, and that the Council is endeavouring to put an enhanced interim package of home tutoring and additional interventions in place, it is arguable that it is in continuing breach of section 19. It is also arguable that where the public body has acted unlawfully, the Claimant is entitled to declarations to mark the illegality, and further arguable that judicial review is the appropriate remedy in this case, not least because it can provide a clear context for the future discharge of the Council’s duty under section 19.
(10) Given the clear need for a speedy resolution of issues concerning the Claimant’s education, I order some degree of expedition, and fix the full hearing for 18 May 2026.