HTC -v- London Borough of Lewisham (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000014

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

14 March 2026

Before:

DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HTC (by her mother and litigation friend HBD)

-v-

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC

  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 names of the Claimant and her litigation friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant and her litigation friend are to be referred to orally and in writing as, respectively, HTC and HBD.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or her litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her 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 her litigation friend;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her 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. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: No order as to costs.
  4. 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

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an 8 year old child with disabilities and the claim centres on those disabilities and how they impact the Defendant’s decision-making. The Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of her personal medical information and to allow it to be ventilated in public through these proceedings would be a disproportionate interference with her ECHR Art 8 rights. There is no specific public interest in her identity. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Permission: the Claimant challenges a decision by the Defendant dated 22 September 2025 and upheld on 6 October 2025 refusing to accept that she has a medical necessity to be housed in accommodation where she can have a separate bedroom and accordingly refusing to accord her and her family preference under the Defendant’s housing allocation scheme. This is said to give rise to various breaches of statutory duties and public law principles.

(3) The essence of the Claimant’s case is that there is a body of evidence that is so strongly supportive of there being a medical necessity to be rehoused that the Defendant has either ignored it or made a decision that is so unreasonable as to be unlawful. The Claimant’s statement of facts and grounds lists all this evidence but the only pieces of evidence she has actually included in her judicial review bundle are (a) a report by an organisation called Drumbeat (who apparently assessed the Claimant at the request of her school) and (b) a report from an educational psychologist.

(4) The Drumbeat report records the Claimant’s mother’s own views about the impact on the Claimant of having to share a bedroom (bundle p.40) but does not make any findings or recommendations about this.

(5) The educational psychologist’s report records that the Claimant “finds it hard to share with her older sister who is in Year 5 at home” (bundle p. 52) but makes no findings or recommendations concerning her accommodation.

(6) Accordingly, on the evidence so far submitted to the Court, the Claimant does not have an arguable claim that the Defendant’s decision was unlawful in any of the ways alleged.

(7) There is a further reason for refusing permission on Ground 7 (“failure to safeguard”). This appears to concern matters other than the housing decision but they are not sufficiently identified to make it clear what decision(s) are being challenged.

(8) There is also a further reason for refusing permission on Ground 8 (“failure to disclose information”). This is a complaint that the Defendant has failed to respond o a subject access request under the UK GDPR. It is not necessary to seek judicial review in order to challenge this decision. It is open to the Claimant to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, or to bring an ordinary civil claim in the County Court under the UK GDPR and/or the Data Protection Act 2018.

(9) Given my decision on permission, the application for urgent interim relief necessarily falls away. I could only grant such relief if I thought that the Claimant had a strong prima facie case.