JA -v- West Sussex County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001584

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 May 2026

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
JA
(by his father and proposed litigation friend, PA)

-v-

West Sussex County Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds

ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  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 Claimant’s name is 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 JA.

(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.

(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;

ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, 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.

  1. The appointment of a litigation friend friend. PA is appointed as the Claimant’s litigation.
  2. Expedition: The hearing is to be listed for ½ a day during the week commencing 8 June 2026.
  3. Case Management Directions:

    (a) The Claimant must, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, file an undertaking to pay the continuation fee (see below) if permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

    (b) The Defendant must, within 10 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.

    (c) 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.

    (d) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 5 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (b) above.

    (e) 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 7 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.

    (f) 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 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

    (g) 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 5 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

    (h) 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.

    (i) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is ½ day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

    (j) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.

    OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

    Factual background
    (1) The Claimant is a 12-year-old child with complex special educational needs.

    (2) In September 2025, the Claimant was admitted to Oriel High School “the School” a maintained mainstream setting with a specialist support centre provision.

    (3) On 08/05/2025 an annual review meeting was held. It was discussed in this meeting that the Claimant was not meeting his EHC Plan targets and that his progress had stalled.

    (4) At the meeting it was agreed that another annual review meeting would be arranged for December 2025.

    (5) On 27/08/2025, the Defendant issued a decision letter confirming that the EHC Plan would be maintained and that no amendments would be made.

    (6) In September 2025, the Claimant entered year 8 at Oriel High School. On 10/12/2025, an annual review meeting was held. The School set out that they could not provide certain elements of the Claimant’s EHC Plan.

    (7) On 06/01/2026 the Claimant’s litigation friend was sent the annual review report by the School.

    (8) On 07/01/2026, the School confirmed that the annual review report, accompanied by the change of placement letter and supporting documents, had been sent to the Defendant.

    (9) Four weeks after the annual review meeting on 07/01/2026, pursuant to Regulation 20(10), the Defendant should have issued a decision letter setting out their intention to amend the EHC Plan, maintain the EHC Plan with no amendments, or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. The Defendant did not do so.

    (10) On 25/01/2026, the Claimant’s litigation friend sent a formal stage 1 complaint to the Defendant.

    (11) On 23/02/2026, the Claimant’s litigation friend was not provided with a response to his stage 1 complaint.

    (12) On 27/02/2026, the Claimant’s litigation friend sought to escalate his stage 1 complaint to stage 2 due to the continuing failure to provide him with a response. The Defendant apologised for the delay and refused to escalate matters to stage 2 without having issued a stage 1 response.

    (13) On 11/03/2026, the Defendant provided the Claimant’s Litigation Friend with a stage 1 complaint response. The response upheld the Claimant’s complaint.

    (14) On 13/03/2026, the Claimant’s litigation friend escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the basis that the complaint response had not provided an adequate remedy. The Local authority acknowledged the complaint ad indicated that they would respond by 13/04/2026 ( a substantial response was not received).

    (15) On 14/03/2026, the Claimant’s Litigation Friend requested a copy of the Claimant’s provision map and school timetable, showing which of the Claimant’s teachers held a specialist dyslexia qualification, which had been submitted to the Defendant as part of the December 2025 annual review.

    (16) The provision map made no reference to a multi-sensory learning programme designed by a qualified dyslexia teacher and none of the Claimant’s core subject lessons are taught by a dyslexia qualified teacher.

    (17) As per the stage 1 complaint response, on or by 25/03/2026, the Defendant should have provided a decision as to whether they were amending or maintaining the EHC Plan. The Defendant has not done so.

    The claim for judicial review

    (18) The Claimant’s grounds for judicial review are:

    (a) Ground 1: The failure to comply with s.42 CFA 2014 is a breach of statutory duty. The Defendant has a non-delegable duty to provide the Claimant with the special educational provision specified in the Claimant’s EHC Plan (s.42 CFA 2014), and to ensure that the bulk of the provision is secured within five weeks of the EHC Plan being finalised. The provision stated in section F is not in place. In addition, the Defendant’s internal email of 9 February 2026 and their stage 1 complaint response upheld the complaint that provision in section F of the Claimant’s EHC Plan is not being secured. The Defendant has provided no assurance that this provision will be made or that active steps are being taken to secure this provision. There is now a real risk that the Claimant will not be able to meet his educational potential and access the GCSE curriculum.

    (b) Ground 2: The failure to comply with statutory timescales in the SEND Regulations 2014 is a breach of statutory duty. The Defendant had a mandatory duty under the SEND Regulations 2014 to issue their decision as to whether the Claimant’s EHC Plan would be maintained or amended on 7 January 2026. The Defendant did not do so. At the date of issuing this claim, the Defendant has not issued any decision under Regulation 20(10) SEND Regulations 2014. The Defendant is in breach of the statutory timescales both for deciding whether to amend the EHC Plan and for issuing the finalised EHC Plan itself. The delay is now so significant that it would not be an answer to the Defendant’s breach of Regulation 20(10) SEND Regulations 2014 simply to issue a decision to either amend or maintain the EHC Plan. Over fifteen weeks have passed since the annual review meeting on 10 December 2026, with no decision or final EHC Plan issued.

    (19) The Defendant accepts that it is in breach of its statutory duties under section 42 Children and Families Act 2014; and under Regulation 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014.

    Expedition

    (20) The Claimant submits that the Court of Appeal has emphasised that in cases concerning the education of children and young people, “speed must be of the essence” (H v East Sussex County Council [2009] ELR 161 at §13). As set out in R (on the application of Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2025] EWHC 173 (Admin) at §35, whilst judicial review is normally a two stage procedure, a rolled-up hearing can be directed where there are “good reasons for the claim to be determined even more quickly”. In this case it is important that the Claimant receives a quick final decision:

    (a) Until the Defendant issues the Claimant with a decision as to whether to maintain the Claimant’s EHC Plan or amend it, the Claimant must remain in his current placement without any right of appeal. The Claimant’s current placement has explicitly stated that they cannot deliver the provision in section F of the EHC Plan. The Defendant’s breach of statutory duty under the SEND Regulations 2014 bars the Claimant from challenging his current placement by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal and unlawfully gatekeeps the Claimant’s access to a remedy. The Court will be aware that even after an appeal is issued in the First- tier Tribunal under s.51 CFA 2014, the waiting times for an appeal to be heard are currently lengthy. It is therefore imperative that the Claimant be given either a decision that the EHC Plan will be amended or their right of appeal as soon as possible and within the statutory timescale set out under Regulation 20(10). It has already been over fifteen weeks since the Claimant’s annual review meeting. The Claimant’s right of appeal should have crystallised eleven weeks ago, but the Claimant remains in limbo with no recourse to challenge the situation. Addressing the Defendant’s failure is therefore urgent.

    (b) The Defendant has, throughout the pre-action process, failed to respond or substantively engage with the Claimant.

    (c) The Claimant has complex special educational needs that require the right special educational provision. The Defendant’s failure to secure provision has led to a clear deterioration in the Claimant’s skills and is causing him to regress.

    (d) The Defendant’s failure has also had a serious negative impact on the Claimant’s self-esteem, anxiety, and mental health.

    Signed: RICHARD CLAYTON KC
    Date: 13 May 2026