LEY -v- South Tyneside Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002412

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

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

-v-

South Tyneside Council
(Defendant/Respondent)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief, dated 14 May 2026

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.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 her children, or other matters which could lead to her or 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 “LEY” and any matters which could lead to the identification of her or her children 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;

(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 has been referred to me, as ‘immediates’ judge, this afternoon.
  2. In so far as discernible from the material with which the Court has been provided, the challenge is to the Respondent’s conduct in connection with one or more care orders made in family proceedings affecting the Applicant’s children. Wide-ranging, but essentially unparticularised, allegations of unlawful activity and corruption are made, including in relation to the Respondent’s activities in connection with children in other families. The Court has been provided (by a person said, in other documentation, to be the Applicant’s father) with a certificate of suitability of litigation friend asserting the Applicant to be a protected party and consenting to act as her litigation friend. No medical or other evidence is attached to that form. Correspondence with the Court to date is said to have emanated, variously, from the Applicant herself and/or the proposed litigation friend. The interim relief sought is extensive and includes, for example, ‘an interim direction that the department take no new steps, make no new plans, and implement no new policies affecting children or families pending full hearing, due to proven systemic illegality, corruption and breach of law’.
  3. Without determining the question of permission, on the material provided I cannot be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried. In any event, the grant of interim relief would risk impermissible interference with care proceedings and the creation of satellite litigation, and the substantive relief sought is wide-ranging and inadequately explained. To the extent that allegations of criminal conduct are made, those fall to be considered by the police (if and as appropriate), rather than by the Administrative Court. The balance of convenience favours refusal of the interim relief sought.
  4. In relation to the claim itself, it may be necessary for the court to consider whether the claimant has litigation capacity, and to make any consequential orders/directions.
    It is likely that any child of the claimant who is directly affected by the claim will need to be joined as an Interested Party. No explanation has been proffered for the issue of proceedings in London, rather than in Leeds, the latter ostensibly being the court with which the claim has the closest connection. All such considerations are for another day.

Anonymity

  1. There is a risk that identifying the claimant in these proceedings would contravene orders made in the Family Court proceedings. Non-disclosure of her identity is necessary for the protection of the children’s interests, and, potentially, her own. 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: 05/06/26