MAU -v- Surrey County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003452

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

16 November 2025

Before:

John Halford,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
MAU
(Claimant, by his mother and litigation friend, MTB)

-v-

Surrey County Council
(Defendant)

and

National Star College
(Interested Party)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for directions as part of his judicial review claim

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowlegement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply and further evidence

ORDER BY JOHN HALFORD 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’s name 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 ‘MAU’ and his mother and litigation friend as ‘MTB’

(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;

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

(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. Case Management

(a) The claimant has permission to rely on the second witness statement of MTB.

(b) The claimant has permission to rely on the amended statement of facts and grounds.

(c) The Defendant has permission to file amended Summary Grounds of Resistance by 4pm on 1 December 2025.

(d) Any Reply from the Claimant must be filed and served by 4pm on 8 December 2025.

(e) The papers are to be referred to a Judge or Deputy Judge, within 7 days thereafter for a decisions on whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review and expedition.

3. ADR

By 4pm on 1 December 2025, each party should file a note of no more than three pages setting out their up-to-date respective positions on the appropriateness of ADR in this case.

4. Costs

    Costs reserved.

    OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

    1. The Claimant is a vulnerable person and much of the claim relies on sensitive medical information about him. That engages his common law and Article 8 ECHR private life rights. In such circumstances, derogation from the open justice principle to protect his identify is justified.
    2. The Defendant has not had a formal opportunity yet to respond to the amended Grounds of Claim, new evidence and proposed timetable which, given its response to the claim as originally framed, it is likely to want to take. I have given the Claimant permission to rely on both because they respond to what is, in effect, an updating of the Defendant’s decision (though not a wholly new one and flexibility of the kind discussed in para of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 is merited). Provision is made for the Defendant to respond in paragraph 2(c) above. In any event, the permission judge will want to know they Defendant’s position on what the Claimant now says about expedition.
    3. As regards para 3, ‘ADR’, it appears to be common ground that this is a case where the Defendant has the power to do what the Claimant seeks, and so the dispute focusses on its exercise. It falls squarely within the class described by Woolf CJ in Frank Cowl and Ors v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935. Consideration should therefore be given to ADR not only before but throughout the proceedings. The parties are reminded that the court has the power, where appropriate, to direct that ADR should be attempted as foreshadowed by Woolf CJ’s comments and ultimately confirmed in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416. The permission judge may wish to consider encouraging, or even requiring, ADR in this case once appraised of the parties’ positions regardless of their decision on permission.

    Signed: JOHN HALFORD, SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

    Date: 16.11.2025