JC -v- London Borough of Redbridge (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003437

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

27 January 2025

Before:

David Lock KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
JC
(by his Mother and Litigation Friend, ZC)

-v-

London Borough of Redbridge


Anonymity order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds and the Claimant’s Reply.

And after giving consideration to the Article 8 rights of the Claimant to respect for private and family life, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

And upon it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and that there is no sufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure.

ORDER BY DAVID LOCK KC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. The identity of the Claimant as a party to these proceedings is protected and shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication the name or address of the Claimant, the Claimant’s Litigation Friend or other immediate family members, or any details (including other names, addresses, or a specific combination of facts) that could lead to the identification of JC as the Claimant in these proceedings.
  3. In any judgment or report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation thereto:
    (a) The Claimant shall be referred to as “JC”.
    (b) The Litigation Friend shall be referred to as “ZC”;
    (c) The school at which the Claimant is enrolled shall be referred to as “the X primary school”;
    (d) Any other details liable to lead to the identification of the Claimant (including any names of other immediate family members or their addresses) shall be redacted before publication; and
    (e) In order to protect the Claimant’s identity, any references to officers of the Defendant local authority shall be suitably anonymised.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D:
    (a) A person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with paragraph 3 above; and
    (b) If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies (pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(1B) or (2)) for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor.
  5. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 27 January 2025 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
  6. Any person, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, provided that any such application is made on notice to the Claimant’s solicitor, and that 7 days’ prior notice of the intention to make such an application is given.
  7. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  8. Costs: No order as to costs.
  9. 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;

(iii) this Order;

(iv) 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) The Claimant, acting by his Mother. seeks permission for judicial review of the Defendant’s discharge of its duties to the Claimant as an Education Authority. The Claimant is aged 6 and has been diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. He suffers from anxiety and the evidence suggests that he is largely non-verbal. He is not presently attending school and the Defendant is not providing any consistent level of educational support to the Claimant in his own home.

(2) The Claimant alleges (1) that the Defendant has breached its duty under s19 of the Education Act 1996 to make arrangements for the provision of suitable education for the Claimant, (2) that the Defendant is in breach of its duty under s42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to provide the Claimant with SEN provision as set out in Part F of the EHCP, (3) the Defendant is acting irrationally.

(3) The Claimant has an EHCP dated 10 August 2023 which specifies that he should be educated at a mainstream Primary School, with X Primary School named in the plan. He was due to start at this school in January 2024 but appears to have been overcome with anxiety and was unable to attend school. The Claimant’s Mother asserts that, as a result of JC’s medical profile and SEN, JC has not been medically fit and able to attend school since 8 January 2024 and that this has meant that JC has not been in full-time education, nor has he received the full provision as set out in his EHCP Plan since 8 January 2024. The Claimant, supported by his Mother, has made various attempts to access the school on occasions since January 2024 but these attempts have not been successful. The Defendant has provided some support to the Claimant at home with a view to him attending the X Primary School but this has not been successful.

(4) The Defendant’s case is that it has made all the facilities available to the Claimant at X Primary School specified in the EHCP and that the fact that the Claimant is either unable to attend that school because of his anxiety or because of the actions of his Mother does not leave the Defendant in breach of its statutory duties.

(5) Given that the Defendant is making the facilities set out in the EHCP available to the Claimant, I agree that the claimed breach of the duty under s42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 is unarguable. I therefore refuse permission on ground 2.

(6) I refuse permission on grounds 1 and 3 because, in my judgment, the Claimant has an appropriate alternative remedy, namely seeking a variation to the EHCP to provide for alternative educational provision to the X Primary School in order to meet the Claimant’s needs for special educational services (and thus satisfy the Defendant’s s19 duty).

(7) The First Tier Tribunal has powers to assess the type of educational services that the Claimant needs, can resolve any factual disputes about the reasons why the Claimant has not been attending the X Primary School and, if it is persuaded that the X Primary School is unsuitable for the Claimant, can define a different form of educational provision for the Claimant and impose a duty on the Defendant local authority to provide that alternative form of educational provision. The Tribunal is thus far better placed than the High Court to make these decisions and, if it does so, will render these proceedings academic.

(8) A hearing before the Tribunal has been listed for May 2025 and thus, in practice, this will result in an earlier resolution to this case than if it were to be listed for a full judicial review hearing.

(9) I have made an anonymity order in standard form. I have also provided for no order as to costs because the Claimant is legally aided and the Defendant has not provided a costs schedule.

Signed: David Lock KC

Date: 27 January 2025