August 14, 2026

KMX -v- London Borough of Lambeth (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003768

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 August 2026

Before:

Alan Bates,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
KMX
(a child, by her Litigation Friend, NMX)

-v-

London Borough of Lambeth
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision – Procedural

Following consideration of (i) the Claim Form and accompanying documents lodged by the Claimant, (ii) the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence filed on 24 November 2025, and (iii) the applications filed by the Claimant on 14 January 2026, 29 January 2026, and 26 April 2026

ORDER BY ALAN BATES, SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Confirmation of name of the Claimant and authorisation of the Litigation Friend: By way of correction of the information stated in the Claim Form:

(a) the Claimant is the child, who is to be referred to in these proceedings as “KMX”;

(b) the Claimant brings these proceedings by her mother, who is hereby authorised to act as the Claimant’s Litigation Friend pursuant to CPR Part 21 and is to be referred to in these proceedings as “NMX”; and

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or s.39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the names of the Claimant, the Claimant’s Litigation Friend, any parent of the Claimant, and any school attended by the Claimant are all to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ”KMX”;

(iii) the Litigation Friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as ”NMX”;

(iv) the Claimant’s father is to be referred to orally and in writing as “the Father”; and

(v) the school currently being attended by the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “School L”.

(b) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(i) 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; and

(ii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

Permission to apply for judicial review: Consideration, by the Court on the papers, of the question of permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to after 1 September 2026, reserved to DHCJ Alan Bates.
Requirement for the Defendant to file an updating witness statement: The Defendant must, by 4pm on Thursday 27 August 2026, file a short witness statement from one of its officers, verified by a statement of truth, providing an update on the Defendant’s efforts to secure provision of all elements of the supports listed in Section F of the Claimant’s current Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”). The witness statement must exhibit a copy of the current EHCP and must include clear and candid factual information as to the following matters: (i) identification of any such supports that are not in place for the Claimant for the start of the 2026/27 academic year; (ii) an explanation and chronology of the efforts made by the Defendant to secure the provision of those elements since 24 September 2025 (the date of the Claimant’s Pre-Action Protocol letter); and (iii) confirmation that arrangements have been made for all other supports listed in Section F to be provided from the start of the 2026/27 academic year.
On or after 1 September 2026, the Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review and her other applications will be referred back to DHCJ Alan Bates for further consideration on the papers.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Confirmation of name of the Claimant and authorisation of the Litigation Friend: The Claim Form identifies the child’s mother and father as being the claimants; however, it is apparent from other filed materials that they are seeking to bring the claim on behalf of the child. Further, the bundle filed with the Claim Form includes, at p.22, a Certificate of Suitability to Act as Litigation Friend signed by the mother, NMX (but not by the Father). A further Certificate, this time signed by both NMX and the Father, has been filed, but that Certificate is dated 26 April 2026 and therefore post-dates the commencement of the proceedings.

(2) The child requires a person to act as her litigation friend, but it is not desirable for more than one person to act in that capacity. (Multiple litigation friends are generally not allowed, given that there could, in theory, be scope for disagreements to arise between those persons relating to the conduct of the proceedings.) Accordingly, for the sake of clarity, I have made an order that the Claimant is the child, and that she brings these proceedings by her mother, NMX, (and no one else) as her Litigation Friend.

(3) Anonymisation / Reporting restrictions: The Claimant has not made an application for anonymisation and reporting restrictions. She is, however, a child, and the issues in her case involve consideration of matters that are confidential and personal to her, such as her medical status and special educational needs and disabilities. I am satisfied that it is proportionate to protect her privacy by providing for anonymity for her and her parents, and preventing publication of information that could lead to her being publicly identified in reports relating to these proceedings. These limited incursions upon the open justice principle will not prevent the public having access to information as to the substantive issues in the proceedings and the reasons for any judgments and orders made by the Court.

(4) Permission to apply for judicial review: This claim was issued some time ago, on 16 October 2025, in the first term of the 2025/26 academic year. That academic year has now effectively elapsed, and the new academic year will start in just a few weeks’ time. The principal issue raised by the claim is, in my view, the issue raised by Ground 1, namely whether the Defendant is failing to deliver certain elements of provision mandated in Section F of the EHCP. It appears from the Defendant’s Summary Grounds filed on 24 November 2025 that the Defendant was, at that time, admitting that it was, in that way, failing to carry out its statutory duty, but said that it was making anxious efforts to resolve this failure prospectively, doing so in liaison with School L and/or Surrey County Council.

(5) In order for the Court properly to decide now, i.e. at this point in time, whether permission to apply for judicial review should be granted, it is essential that the Court be provided with up-to-date information as to whether the Defendant is still failing to secure the provision of any elements of the supports mandated by Section F of the EHCP. If all elements are now being provided, then the claim may have become academic. If, however, some elements are still not being provided, then the ongoing delay in providing them would appear to constitute continuing unlawfulness. Further, the delay would require detailed explanation, given that the Claimant’s Pre-Action Protocol letter was sent over 10 months ago.

(6) I have therefore required the Defendant to file a witness statement assisting the Court as to the current factual position. If certain elements of the provision required by Section F is not yet in place and is not expected to be in place by the start of the 2026/27 academic year (i.e. in a few weeks’ time), then it is likely that I will grant permission to apply for judicial review on Ground 1 and order an expedited listing of a substantive hearing. It is not apparent to me that the Defendant would have any realistic defence to Ground 1 in those circumstances.

(7) The parties are urged to now promptly collaborate constructively to find a way forwards without further diversion of money and effort into litigation. Precious time is passing in the life of this child. If the Defendant is still not securing delivery of all the supports to which the Claimant is entitled, then it ought now to act very swiftly indeed to commission the necessary supports from relevant providers in the area of Surrey where School L is located; expense, or the Defendant’s wish to follow its usual commissioning arrangements/ procedures, cannot be a material barrier in these circumstances. The parties could then agree a draft consent order for the proceedings to be withdrawn by the Claimant on the basis that the Defendant will pay the Claimant’s costs assessed by reference to the time spent by the Litigation Friend, calculated in accordance with CPR 46.5 read with PD46, paras 3.1-3.4.

Signed: DHCJ Alan Bates
Date: 14 August 2026