KBN -v- Nottingham City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-BHM-000173

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 May 2026

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on application of
KBN

-v-

Nottingham City Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for interim relief

After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant only

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as KBN.
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. The Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service by 29th May 2026.
  3. The Claimant may file a Reply by 5th June 2026.
  4. The application for interim relief is adjourned until permission.
  5. Costs in the Case

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is the disabled single parent of his children, whom the Defendant made subject to a Child Protection Plan on or around 10th April 2026. As the case concerns children, I will grant him anonymity.
  2. The Claimant contends the Defendant has not disclosed the Child Protection Plan under challenge, which he says is procedurally unfair and illegal. He also alleges a failure to deal with a complaint about the social worker, who was not replaced and he says was biased in recommending the Child Protection Plan. The Claimant also contends that it breaches Art.8 ECHR, is discriminatory against him as a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 and finally irrational.
  3. It is not feasible to evaluate the arguability of these challenges (and so the Claimant’s application for permission and for interim relief) without a response from the Defendant (preferably accompanied by a copy of the Child Protection Plan) that I will expedite and enable the Claimant to reply.

Signed: HHJ Tindal