July 15, 2026

HSC -v- London Borough of Ealing (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001709

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 July 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Eady DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
HSC
(by his Litigation Friend, PCN)
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Ealing
(Defendant)

and

NHS North-West Integrated Care Board
(Interested Party)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, and the further material lodged by the Claimant post-issue

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE

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 name of the Claimant’s litigation friend is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant’s litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as PCN.

(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.

(i) if any statement of case filed after the date of this Order 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;

(ii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case unless that document does not reveal the name, address, date of birth, or email address of any Claimant or of the Litigation Friend, or it is a redacted version from which all such information has been removed.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Interim relief: The application for urgent consideration and interim relief is refused.
Costs: No order as to costs.
Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

Anonymity
(1) An anonymity Order was previously made by Bourne J (see Order 16 April 2026) on the basis that the Claimant is a vulnerable child. Similarly, an anonymity Order should be made in respect of the Claimant’s litigation friend (his mother) so as to protect the personal and private information relating to the Claimant that might otherwise be disclosed in these proceedings. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph

Permission
(2) The Claimant is a 16 year old young person with special educational needs and disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder, severe learning disabilities, ADHD and a sensory processing disorder.

(3) By the proposed claim, the Claimant contends the Defendant has (1) acted in breach of its duty under section 42 Children and Families Act 2014 by failing to secure EHCP provision, maintain continuity of provision and secure funding/provision arrangements; (2) acted irrationally in stating (in its letter of 31 March 2026) that there is “no evidence” for the enhanced package; (3) failed to comply with the statutory amendment process; (4) unlawfully reduced or destabilised provision through commissioning and funding decisions and to properly engage with joint commissioning arrangements; and (5) unfairly handled decisions concerning the provision for the Claimant and the EHCP amendment process.

(4) Many of the allegations made by the Claimant are difficult to understand save as part of a larger, and on-going, series of disagreements between the Claimant/the Claimant’s Litigation Friend and the Defendant. Acknowledging what might be a degree of frustration in dealing with these issues on the part of the Claimant’s Litigation Friend, it is not possible to pursue a claim for judicial review on generalised grounds of complaint that fail to identify with any precision what is actually being challenged and/or the public law basis of the claim being made. To the extent that the claim (which was filed and issued on 13 April 2026) takes issue with the amended EHCP issued on 30 July 2025; an alleged failure following the annual review of 14 October 2025 to lawfully progress the EHCP amendment process and issue a timely decision; and the decision around 2 December 2025 concerning continuity of provision, these complaints are out of time and I do not accept that a proper basis has been disclosed for the grant of the Court’s discretion to extend time. As for a complaint of a failure to secure provision such as to give rise to a breach of section 42 of the 2014 Act, the claim fails to identify what specific provision has not been secured. And, as for the issue of the draft amended EHCP and accompanying letter of 31 March 2026, it is apparent that this is a document that seeks the input of the Claimant/the Claimant’s Litigation Friend and does not represent a final decision – the claim in this regard is simply premature and assumes a decision that has not yet been made.

(5) For the reasons given, I do not find the grounds advanced by the Claimant to be arguable such that this matter should proceed to a substantive hearing; I have duly refused permission.

Interim relief
(6) For like reasons, I am not persuaded that the Claimant has identified a serious issue to be tried such as would justify the grant of the interim relief sought; even if I was wrong about this, given (i) the delay in challenging past decisions, and (ii) the preliminary nature of the Defendant’s “decision” of 31 March 2026, I consider the balance of convenience would fall in favour of not granting interim relief in this case.

Costs
(7) In its Summary Grounds of Defence, the Defendant asked that the Court exercise its discretion to grant the Defendant’s costs, but no sum has been identified in this regard and no schedule of costs has been filed. In the circumstances, I have made no Order for costs.

Signed: MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
Date: 14 JULY 2026