HOY -v- Telford and Wrekin Council and others (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-BHM-000131

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

28 April 2026

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

In the matter of an application for judicial review

The King on the application of

HOY
(Acting by his litigation friend HPA)

-v-

1. Telford and Wrekin Council

2. Thomas Telford School (Interested Party)

Anonymity Order

On an application by the Claimant for: (a) appointment of a litigation friend; (b) anonymity; (c) interim relief; and (d)
expedition of the Claim

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  1. Litigation Friend:
    The Claimant’s mother, HPA is appointed as his litigation friend.
  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 and the litigation friend’s names 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 HOY and the litigation friend as HPA.

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

    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant/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.
  3. Mandatory injunctions:
    The applications for mandatory injunctions against the Defendant and the Interested Party are refused, but may be renewed at the permission stage.
  4. Expedition:
    The papers are to be referred to a judge to consider as soon as possible after the Defendant and Third Party have filed their Acknowledgments of service or time for them to do so has expired, whichever is the earliest.
  5. Extension of Time to Bring Claim:
    The Litigation Friend shall within 7 days of service of this order file with the court and serve on the Defendant/Interested Party a witness statement explaining why the Claimant delayed in filing the Claim
    beyond 6 March 2026. The judge considering permission will also consider whether to extend the Claimant’s time to bring the Claim.

    REASONS
    (1) Litigation friend: The Claimant is a child, the litigation friend is an appropriate person to appoint as his litigation friend and is willing to act.

    (2) Anonymity: The Claimant is a vulnerable child and the private interests of protecting the child’s identity outweigh the public interest in knowing their identity. Identifying the litigation friend will identify the
    Claimant. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice.

    (3) Mandatory injunction:
    The Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s decision of 13 February 2026 to issue an EHCP for the Claimant naming a school other than the Interested Party as the secondary school to be attended by
    the Claimant. Whilst various relief is sought against the Defendant and the Interested Party, in substance the Claimant is seeking, as final relief, an order which requires the Defendant to amend the Claimant’s
    EHCP to show the Interested Party as the secondary school to be attended by him from September 2026 and an order requiring the Interested Party to accept the Claimant as a pupil in September 2026.
    By way of interim relief the claimant seeks a mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant to reissue the Claimant’s EHCP within 48 hours naming the Interested Party as the secondary school to be attended
    by the Claimant and an order that the Interested Party admit the Claimant as a pupil in September 2026. The interim relief sought by the Claimant is therefore, in substance, the same as the final relief sought by the Claimant in the event that his claim for judicial review is successful. That relief is sought within 48 hours without giving either the Defendant or the Interested Party any or any reasonable opportunity to respond to the claim or to the application for interim relief.

    It would rarely be appropriate to grant interim relief without giving the party against whom the interim relief is sought an opportunity to respond to the claim/application for interim relief, but this is particularly so where here: (a) the interim relief is in substance the same as the final relief; (b) the claim on its face faces real difficulties
    (for example would an application to the First Tier Tribunal be a suitable remedy/route and why would the Claimant be entitled to relief against the Interested Party when no decision of the Interested Party is challenged); and (c) the time limit for the Claimant to bring his claim for Judicial Review is 21 days after the decision challenged and that time period expired on 6 March 2026 almost a month before the claim was filed. This has two consequences (i) the Claimant’s time to bring the Claim may not be extended to allow the claim to proceed; and (ii) granting a mandatory injunction without hearing from the Defendant/Interested Party is even less justified where there has been such delay by the Claimant.

    (4) Expedition: Delay in dealing with claims by children concerning their welfare/education will inevitably result in prejudice to the child and this case is no different. Given the number of and complexity of the grounds advanced it would not be fair to curtail the Defendant/Interested Party’s time to respond (particularly when the Claimant delayed well beyond the 21 days allowed to file the Claim) but I will direct that permission should be considered as soon as possible after the Defendant and Interested Party file their Acknowledgments of service or time for them to do so has expired.

    (5) Extension of Time: The Claim should have been filed by 6 March 2026, the Claimant needs to apply for an extension of time to bring his claim and I have therefore directed that the Claimant or his litigation friend
    file a witness statement setting out the reasons for the delay and that an extension of time will be considered at the same time as permission.