KKB -v- Surrey County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002116

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 May 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

Between:

The King
on the application of
KKB
(by her Litigation Friend) (ANONYMITY GRANTED)

-v-

Surrey County Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

  1. The application for urgent interim relief is refused.
  2. The time for the service of the Acknowledgement of Service by the Defendant is abridged to seven days from the date of service of this order on the Defendant.
  3. Upon receipt of the Acknowledgement of Service, the matter shall be placed before a judge for the determination of the question of permission on an expedited basis.
  4. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identities of the Claimant and the Litigation Friend shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court. The Claimant shall be referred to as “KKB” in these proceedings. Nothing shall be published which may reveal the name or address of the Claimant and Litigation Friend, or any other details liable to lead to their identification.
  5. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant and Litigation Friend have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
  6. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant seeks interim relief requiring the Defendant to arrange suitable full-time education pursuant to section 19 of the Education Act 1996. The Claimant is a child of compulsory school age who asserts that she has been unable to access education since 3 October 2025, of which situation the Defendant is aware. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has failed to progress the Claimant’s EHCP following the decision to issue on 20 March 2026
  2. The Defendant is said to be denying responsibility for arranging suitable education for the Claimant on the ground that the Claimant is not in its area. The Claimant contends that a dispute as to jurisdiction does not justify a failure to ensure a child is not left without suitable education.
  3. Whilst the resumption of the Claimant’s education is a matter of urgency, that urgency is not capable of justifying the court making a mandatory order against the Defendant without hearing from the Defendant. The urgency does however justify the expedition of the claim.
  4. In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to abridge time for service of the Acknowledgement of Service by the Defendant and to expedite consideration of the question of permission following receipt of the AOS.
  5. The claimant is a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21.1(2)(d). Whilst no application has been made for an anonymity order, such an order is appropriate. An order for anonymity is a derogation from the principle of open justice. Any such derogation will be exceptional and based on necessity. In this case, an anonymity order is strictly necessary. The Claimant is a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21.1(2)(d). The claim concerns the arrangements for meeting the Claimant’s education.
  6. In the circumstances privacy is necessary to protect the interests of a protected party and, having regard to the particular importance of the principle of open justice and the Art 8 and Art 10 rights engaged, the anonymity order granted is the minimum necessary derogation from the principle of open justice to achieve this. In circumstances where the Litigation Friend for the Claimant is his mother, permitting the disclosure of the identity of the Litigation Friend would inevitably lead to the disclosure of the identity of the Claimant, defeating the purposes of the anonymity order in respect of the Claimant.

Signed: Mr Justice MacDonald