LWR -v- Cambridgeshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002926

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

25 June 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Murray

Between:

The King
on the application of
LWR
(by his litigation friend, MDB)
(Claimant)

-v-

Cambridgeshire County Council
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim injunctive relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Murray

  1. The claimant’s urgent application for interim relief will not be considered until the defendant has had an opportunity to consider it and to provide a written response to the court.
  2. The defendant is directed to file and serve a written response to the claimant’s urgent application for interim relief by 4:00 pm on Wednesday, 8 July 2026.
  3. Upon receipt of the defendant’s written response or if no response is received from the defendant by the time specified in paragraph 2, the papers are to be placed before a judge or deputy judge of the Administrative Court for determination, which may involve giving further directions, including, if necessary or appropriate, for listing of an oral hearing in relation to interim relief.
  4. The parties have liberty to apply to vary paragraphs 2-3 of this order.

Anonymity, reporting restrictions, and access to documents

  1. The claimant’s application for anonymity is granted. Pursuant to CPR r 39.2(4), neither the identity of the Claimant nor the identity of the Claimant’s litigation friend shall be disclosed in relation to these proceedings. In these proceedings:

(i) the Claimant shall be referred to as “LWR”; and

(ii) the Claimant’s litigation friend shall be referred to as “MDB”.

  1. The names and addresses of the Claimant and his litigation friend shall be withheld from the public record. The address on the claim form shall be replaced by the address of the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there shall be no publication in any newspaper or other media of the name, address, or image of the Claimant or his litigation friend, or of any information likely to lead to their identification, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. For the avoidance of doubt, this prohibition includes publication by any means of communication, including the internet and social media, and extends to any image or likeness of the Claimant or his litigation friend.
  4. Pursuant to CPR r 5.4C and 5.4D:

(i) any statement of case, judgment or order shall be anonymised in accordance with this Order before it is supplied to any non-party; and

(ii) any person wishing to inspect or obtain a document from the court file must first apply for permission, with notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.

  1. Provided that the parties and/or their advisers do not publish any document identifying the Claimant or his litigation friend by name, the parties and/or their advisers are at liberty to retain in their files in this case without alteration or substitution and to retain and generate internal documentation that identifies the Claimant and/or his litigation friend in connection with these proceedings.
  2. Any interested person, whether or not party to the proceedings, may apply to the court to vary or discharge any or all of paragraphs 5 to 10 of this Order, providing that any such application is made on notice to the parties.

Reasons

  1. Having regarding to CPR r 39.2(4), section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and CPR r 5.4C, in light of the nature of this matter, including the Claimant’s age and special needs, it is in the interests of justice to grant the anonymity and other restrictions sought in order to protect the rights of the Claimant under Article 8 of the ECHR. I am satisfied that the substantive issues in this claim, in the event that permission is granted and it reaches a substantive hearing, can be publicly reported without identification of the Claimant.
  2. The applicant’s litigation friend is understandably anxious for this claim to proceed expeditiously for the reasons set out in the Application for urgent consideration (N463). It is not appropriate, however, for this sort of mandatory injunctive relief to be ordered against a local authority without the respondent having had the chance to respond to the application and a reasonable time within which to do so.
  3. Whether the claim should be expedited can be decided once the respondent’s written response has been received and considered by a judge or deputy judge of the Administrative Court.

Signed: Mr Justice Murray
Date: 25 June 2026