KNF -v- Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LDS-000098

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

28 May 2026

Before:

Her Honour Judge Claire Jackson
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
KNF
(by his litigation friend, KYL)

-v-

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

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 of Defence, and the N235 and supporting documents filed by KYL on 22 May 2026

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE CLAIRE JACKSON SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  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:
(a.i) the Claimant’s name and the Litigation Friend’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(a.ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as KNF and the Litigation Friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as KYL.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or the Litigation Friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of them in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

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

(c.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 or the Litigation Friend;

(c.ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or the Litigation Friend, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(c.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. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £2862.16.
  3. Further provision as to costs:

(a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(a.i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(a.ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(a.iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(b.i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(b.ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(b.iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

5. 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:

    (a.i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

    (a.ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

    (a.iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

    (a.iv) this Order;

    (a.v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

    (a.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:

    (d.i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

    (d.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

    (d.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) Anonymity: The Court notes that on 22 May 2026 KNY filed the necessary documentation pursuant to CPR 21.5 to enable KNY to act as a litigation friend for the Claimant. No further order is needed in that regard as KNY now acts as litigation friend for the Claimant. The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Given the relationship between KNY and the Claimant forms a significant element of the papers before the Court there is a risk of jigsaw identification of the Claimant if KNY is not also granted anonymity. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

    (2) Permission: The Claimant has applied for permission for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision, dated 16 April 2026, to refuse to provide interim funding for transport to enable the Claimant to attend college, pending the Defendant’s substantive response under the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol. It must be noted that this is the only decision which is challenged in this case. In particular the decision of the Defendant that the Claimant was not eligible for home to college transport which was the subject of the Pre-Action Protocol letter is not challenged in this claim.
    (3) Permission to apply for judicial review will be granted only if the Judge is satisfied that there is an arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success. (Judicial Review Guide, paragraph 9.1.3). Even if a claim is arguable, the judge must refuse permission if the claim is or has become academic (Judicial Review Guide, paragraph 6.3.4).
    (4) Having considered all the evidence presented in the case there is no ground of judicial review before the Court with a real prospect of success:
    (a) the Defendant has a published post-16 transport policy and its decision aligns with that policy given the Claimant has previously shown that he is able to use public transport. The Defendant has also complied with its statutory duties to former relevant children (by providing a travel pass and offering assistance for the Claimant to regain his skills regarding public transport usage in his pathway plan) and with relevant guidance in relation to access to education for those who are disabled. The decision is therefore not unlawful;
    (b) there is an alternative education provider which can be accessed by the Claimant without the need to incur transport costs. No evidence is before the Court as to why that alternative provider would fail to meet the needs/exacerbate the condition of the Claimant. As a result the decision of the Defendant not to use public funds to pay for interim transport costs which are avoidable is rational and within the reasonable bounds of outcomes by a decision maker.
    (c) the Defendant has taken into account the relevant considerations, including the Claimant’s disability and its decision is not therefore unlawful, nor is it procedural unfair, and;
    (d) the decision does not breach the Claimant’s human rights given he has been provided with state funds to allow him to travel (via his PIP enhanced mobility payment), he has been provided with a travel pass by the Defendant to access education at a local college and there is no evidence before the Court as to why that course is not suitable.
    (5) Even if I am wrong in the above analysis permission should be withheld in this case as it is clear that:
    (a) given the Defendant provided its Pre-Action Protocol response to the Claimant on 27 April 2026 the claim has become academic, and;
    (b) the Claimant has failed to exhaust a number of alternative remedies including the right to make complaints under the Defendant’s Post 16 Transport Policy or its children’s statutory complaints process, making a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman or to the Secretary of State under section 496 of the Education Act 1996.

    (6) Interim Relief: Given that the Court has refused permission to apply it is not necessary for the Court to consider the application for interim relief.

    (7) Costs: Given the Claimant has issued a claim but permission has been refused the Court must consider the issue of costs. The starting point in considering costs is CPR 44.2. That provides that costs usually follow the event, i.e. the losing party pays the successful parties costs. The Defendant has successfully defended the claim and seeks its costs. The proper order in this case is therefore an order for costs in favour of the Defendant. The Court has summarily assessed the costs making a reduction to the work done on documents. The Court considers that on the evidence before it the costs assessed are reasonable, reflect necessary work and are proportionate. The Court has however provided an opportunity to the Claimant to further address the costs decision should the Claimant wish to do so.

    (8) Renewal: Paragraph 5 of the Order provides directions should the Claimant seek to renew his application for permission (as to which see the notes at the end of this Order). The Claimant is not obliged to do so. The Claimant may wish to take legal advice before making a decision whether to request reconsideration. If the Claimant is unable to afford to pay lawyers and is not eligible for legal aid then he may be able to seek assistance from Citizens Advice, or from lawyers who act pro bono.

    Signed: C Jackson

    Date: 28th May 2026