LEE -v- London Borough of Hounslow and West London Family Court (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002563

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

3 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
LEE
(Claimant/Applicant)

-v-

(1) London Borough of Hounslow
(2) West London Family Court
(Defendants/Respondents)

and

(1) LEI
(2) LIH
(3) LES
(by their father and guardian, LDS)
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief, dated 4 June 2026, but, in fact, lodged on 3 June 2026

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant and of all Interested Parties (and their Guardian) in these proceedings shall not be published.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 (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant or any of the Interested Parties or their Guardian, or any other matters which could lead to their identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “LEE”; the Interested Parties shall be referred to, respectively as “LEI”; “LIH”; and “LES”; and the Interested Parties’ Guardian as “LDS”, and any matters which could lead to the identification of any such person shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:

(a) a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;

(b) if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant and the Interested Parties (by their Guardian);

(c) any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to all parties to these proceedings and that 5 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.

  1. This Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5)
  2. The application for urgent interim relief is refused.
  3. Costs reserved.

REASONS

  1. This application is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. The claim seeks to challenge an interim care order (‘ICO’) made by the First Respondent Court on 14 May 2026 in ongoing Family Court proceedings, asserting that that order was obtained through the Second Respondent’s misconduct, including by the provision of false statements. The Claimant’s grounds of challenge criticise the Second Respondent’s subsequent approach to the placement of her children and certain constraints imposed upon her access to them. The interim relief sought is an order quashing the ICO, alternatively imposing conditions on the return of the children to the Claimant’s care. Additional ancillary orders are sought.
  3. If it is the case that the ICO was obtained on an improper basis (which I do not decide), or if further material evidence has come to light since that order was made, the proper course is for the Claimant to seek to pursue an appeal and/or to apply to vary or discharge the ICO within the family proceedings. The grant of interim relief would risk impermissible interference with those proceedings and the creation of satellite litigation, in circumstances in which the First Respondent’s jurisdiction to make the ICO is not challenged.
  4. Accordingly, and without deciding the question of permission in relation to the claim itself, I am not satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favours refusal of the interim relief sought.

Anonymity

  1. The Interested Parties are children. There is also a risk that identifying any of the parties in these proceedings would contravene orders made in the Family Court Proceedings. Non-disclosure of the parties’ identities is necessary for the protection of the children’s interests. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision made by paragraph 4 of the above orders in which ‘any interested party’ would encompass representatives of the Press and other media.

Signed: Mrs Justice Ellenbogen

Dated: 03/06/26