LOH -v- Essex County Council (anonymity order)

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002381

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 July 2026

Before:

David Pittaway KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
LOH
(Claimant)

-v-

Essex County Council
(Defendant)

and

MST
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Claimant’s application for interim relief, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence, and reply to the application for interim relief, the Claimant’s reply, and the Defendant’s application for anonymity.

ORDER BY DAVID PITTAWAY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  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 and Interested Paty’s names, those of their children and that of the schools referred to in the claim must 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 LOH, the children’s mother as MST, the children as the children and the schools as A School and B School.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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, the children’s mother, the children and the schools.

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, the children’s mother, the children and the schools, 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.

  1. Parties: The children’s mother MST be joined to the claim as an Interested Party.
  2. Interim Relief: The application for interim relief is refused.
  3. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. 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 £1984.20.
  5. 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):

(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.

(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

(iii) specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(iv) 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):

(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.

(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.

(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.
  1. 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:

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

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

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

(iv) this Order;

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

(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:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(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

(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) The claim brought by the father relates to a dispute with the mother of his three children as to their home schooling. The children have been electively home educated since March 2025, initially with the consent of the claimant and the children’s mother. That agreement has now broken down. The claimant has made enquiries of mainstream schooling for the older children, despite the children’s mother making it clear that this is opposed.

(2) The claim for judicial review challenges the defendant’s unlawful continuation of Elective Home Education (“EHE”) investigatory and assessment procedures under sections 436A–437 Education Act 1996 after the claimant alleges he had lawfully terminated home education and secured formal school reintegration arrangements for the children. From the correspondence the latter claim appears to be unfounded.

(3) The interim relief originally sought was directed towards preventing the EHE assessment and ensuring the children’s return to formal schooling by 1 June 2026. That assessment was carried out on 21 May 2026 and the arrangements for the children’s education found to be satisfactory.

(4) The claimant accepts in his reply to the application for interim relief that the original basis for the claim is now academic. Accordingly I have dismissed the application for interim relief. He now indicates that the claims should be amended to challenge the subsequent EHE suitability decision and to raise alleged failures to discharge its Tameside duty of inquiry, including its duty to make sufficient enquiries and to properly consider all relevant information when reaching its decision under the framework of sections 7, 9, and 14A of the Education Act 1996. No such application has been made. The claimant also alleges that the children have been removed from the jurisdiction, whether that is temporary or permanent I do not know. That would also appear to be subject to proceedings in the Family Court.

(5) I have read the Defendant’s submissions which sets out why permission should not be granted, which I accept. In short, the Defendant’s position is that it lawfully continued an EHE investigation triggered by the Claimant, that no valid school placement exists due to parental disagreement, and that the claim improperly seeks to use public law to resolve what is fundamentally a private family dispute. The letter from the Interesting Party’s solicitors dated 28 May 2026 indicates that no application has been made to the Family Court under section 8 of Children Act 1989 for a Specific Issue Order. She is supportive of ethe Defendant’s position.. I have concluded that the claim advanced is not reasonably arguable.

(6) In my view, the proper forum for this dispute is in the Family Court and not the Administrative Court. This Court should be astute as to the collateral use of the judicial review procedure in a family dispute where there is a clear alternative remedy, para 6.3.3 Administrative Court Guide. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort.

(7) Finally, I accept the Defendant’s submission that the Acknowledgment of Service was served in time.

Signed: DAVID PITTAWAY KC
Date: 10/07/2026