ID -v- Milton Keynes City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-002171

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

27 June 2024


The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE


The King on the application of


Milton Keynes City Council


On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, interim relief, expedition, and directions:

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant and her children, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “ID” and her children as ‘A’ and ‘B’.

2. No later than 7 days from the date of service of this order, the Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant and her children, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.

3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant and her children, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.

4. The Defendant do file and serve its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, together with a response to the application for interim relief, no more than 14 days after service of the claim form and supporting documents.

5. The applications for permission and for interim relief shall be considered by a Judge on the papers no later than 14 days after the date on which the Defendant files the documents at paragraph 4 above (in the event of delay, these applications are fit for vacation business).

6. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.

7. Costs reserved.


1. The Claimant, who is the mother of twins aged 22 months, challenges the Defendant’s ongoing refusal to provide financial support that is sufficient to meet the family’s basic needs, under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She also challenges the Defendant’s policy and practice on how decisions on financial support are made.

2. The matter is urgent as the Claimant is dependant upon support from the Defendant. Because of her immigration status, she is not permitted to work in the UK. She cannot afford essentials such as nappies, food, clothing and enough electricity.

3. It would not be appropriate to make any interim order or determine permission until the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond to the claim, by filing an Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Resistance and a response to the application for interim relief. Despite the fact that the Defendant is already dealing with a similar claim, I do not consider that 7 days is sufficient time, given the need to take instructions and instruct counsel. I have abridged time for filing the Acknowledgment of Service to 14 days.

4. The Claimant’s proposal that a Judge should determine permission and interim relief within 3 days of the Defendant filing its Acknowledgment of Service is unrealistic’ given the volume of urgent and important cases that this Court has to process. I have directed that the applications be considered on the papers within 14 days of filing.

5. The further directions sought by the Claimant, such as an expedited hearing date or a rolled-up hearing, whether the claim is fit for vacation business, and possible linking with the similar claim of TM v Milton Keynes City Council AC-2024-LON-001735, are more appropriate for the permission Judge to deal with.

6. I have granted an anonymity order because the claim concerns two children, whose identity will be revealed if their mother’s name is not anonymised. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.