LLM -v- Sunderland City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LDS-000149

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

29 June 2026

Before:

Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC
(Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
LLM
(acting by his Litigation Friend, LGO)
(Claimant)

-v-

Sunderland City Council
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review, urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY MARCUS PILGERSTORFER KC
(DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)

  1. Certificate of Suitability to Act as Litigation Friend: LGO must, by no later than 4pm on 2 July 2026, file and serve a certificate of suitability to Act as Litigation Friend (N235).
  2. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm 8 July 2026. The Defendant should include its response to the application for interim relief and its position on further expedition.

(b) The papers will be referred to a judge or deputy judge as soon as possible thereafter.

  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:

(i) the Claimant’s name, and that of his litigation friend, is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

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

(iii) the Claimant’s litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as LGO.

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

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

(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 his litigation friend;

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

(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.

REASONS

(1) This claim challenges a decision of 4 June 2026 to reduce the Claimant’s personal care budget to 21.25 hours per week. The Claimant is said to have appealed this decision on 7 June 2026 and to have received a response on 10 June 2026 indicating that further enquiries were being made. It is said that the reduced care package resulted in a medical emergency on the part of the Claimant. Three grounds of challenge are identified (although some grounds contain more than one basis of challenge): (i) bad faith, material misrepresentation of fact and Wednesbury unreasonableness, (ii) procedural unfairness/breach of statutory duty; (iii) procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice.

(2) The Claimant/Litigation Friend: This claim is brought on behalf of the Claimant (LLM) by his daughter (LGO). The witness statements filed indicate that the capacity in which she seeks to do so is as Litigation Friend. There is no mention of any ‘power of attorney’ or other specific authorisation to bring this claim. No certificate of suitability to act as litigation friend (see form N235) has been filed. This form requires reasons and medical evidence in support to be given. I have directed that LGO file and serve a certificate of suitability with the Court by 4pm on 2 July 2026.

(3) Expedition and Interim Relief: There is an application for urgent consideration because of the effects of the decision challenged on LLM. Interim relief is sought (inter alia an injunction expressed in terms of an “interim injunction to freeze the Defendant’s unilateral Care Act funding cuts and immediately restore his 115.5 hour care package”). An injunction in those terms appears to be one requiring mandatory action by the Defendant. In all the circumstances it is appropriate for the Defendant to be given an opportunity to put in submissions before the issue of interim relief (and permission) is determined. This is particularly so given that the Claimant has appealed the decision. The Defendant may wish to inform the Court of the status and timing of that appeal, as well as the consequences of that for the purposes of the proposed claim for judicial review.

(4) In terms of expedition, the decision challenged is that of 4 June 2026 and the claim filed on 23 June 2026. No reasons are given in box 2.2 of N463 for this delay in the context of the urgent consideration sought. I have however read LGO’s witness statement. Medical impact is asserted and it is appropriate to grant a degree of expedition. I will therefore abridge time and require the Defendant to serve and file its Acknowledgment of Service (which should contain the Defendant’s response to the application for interim relief, and set out its position on any further expedition) by 4pm 8 July 2026. The file will then be restored to a Judge thereafter to consider interim relief, any further expedition, and, if possible, permission.

(5) Supplemental Evidence: On 28 June 2026, LGO sent the Court an email with supplementary evidence. It is necessary for an application to be made to rely on this evidence which was not filed and served with the Claim Form. It is not necessary for me to make an order about this, but the evidence will not be considered without the Claimant making the required application.

(6) Anonymity: The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and rights pursuant to Art 8 ECHR. I weigh that against the very strong public interest in open justice, including rights derived from Art 10 ECHR. However, in my judgment the Claimant’s privacy rights amount to compelling reasons making it necessary for there to be limited derogations from the principle of open justice as set out in my order in paragraph 3. The derogations are limited to the Claimant’s identity and that of his litigation friend. Otherwise the open justice principle can be given effect.

Signed: Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, DHCJ
Date: 29 June 2026