MDW and another -v- London Borough of Lambeth (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001406

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

27 March 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Eyre

Between:

The King on the application of
MDW

MAL

-v-

London Borough of Lambeth

Order

On an application by the Claimants for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE EYRE

  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 names of the Claimants and of the child to whom this claim relates are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as MDW and MAL and the said child is to be referred to orally and in writing as MLG.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of the said child or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or either of them or of the said child in any report of, or otherwise in connexion with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the Claimants 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 Claimants or the said child;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or the said child, 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 paragraph 1 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk.
  3. The Claimants’ application for interim relief in advance of the consideration of permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) and any Summary Grounds of Defence and must be filed and served by 4pm on 13th April 2026.
    (b) Any Reply from the Claimants (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 17th April 2026.
    (c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge of the Administrative Court on 20th April 2026 or as soon as practicable thereafter. The said referral is to be made even if some or all of the statements of case referred to in sub paragraphs 4(a) and (b) have not been filed. On the said referral that judge or deputy judge will consider the grant of permission together with the application for interim relief.
  5. Costs reserved.
    This order has been made without a hearing. Any party affected by this order may apply within 7 days of the service of this order on that party to have it set aside, varied, or stayed.

Reasons

1) These proceedings relate to the educational arrangements for and the personal circumstances of a vulnerable child. In light of that it is necessary and in the interests of justice for there to be anonymisation of that child and the child’s parents notwithstanding the strong public interest in open justice.
2) I have regard to the criteria for the grant of interim relief in a claim for judicial review. Those are summarised in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide at 16.6.
3) Here the Claimants seek a mandatory order requiring positive action from a public body.
4) Such an order can only be granted where a claimant has shown a strong prima facie case: De Falco v Crawley [1980] QB 460 and R(RRR Manufacturing) Pty Ltd v British Standards Institution [2024] EWCA Civ 530 at [87] and [112].
5) If the applicant for interim relief establishes a strong prima facie case the court has then to consider the balance of convenience. In that regard it is to be noted that the grant of such relief will, if the claim is ultimately unsuccessful, have had the effect of causing the public body to use finite resources to perform a task or provide services which it was not obliged to perform or provide and which (on the hypothesis of the claim failing) it had made a lawful decision not to perform or provide. However, there will be harm to a claimant if interim relief is refused in circumstances where the claim ultimately succeeds and so the claimant is, by the refusal of interim relief, deprived for a longer period of the services which he or she was entitled to receive and where the failure to provide the same is found to have been unlawful.
6) In addition it is only in exceptional circumstances that it will be appropriate to grant such interim relief in the absence of a response from the relevant public body.
7) In light of the circumstances of MLG a degree of expedition is appropriate. If the Claimants’ contentions are correct that child is not receiving the educational provision to which he is entitled and there is a potential impact on his move to secondary education. However, I am not currently persuaded that a strong prima facie case has been shown. There is at the least scope for the view that ground 1 is academic and that the Claimants have an adequate alternative remedy in respect of ground 2. I emphasize, however, that I have not reached a final conclusion in that regard.
8) In addition I am satisfied that the balance of convenience falls against the grant of interim relief in advance of the consideration of the grant or refusal of permission to apply for judicial review provided that such consideration can be effected promptly.
9) It follows that a sufficient case has not been made out for the grant of interim relief in advance of the consideration of permission, let alone in advance of a response from the Defendant.
10) The directions I have made provide for a degree of expedition of the timetable so that a decision on permission will be made in the latter part of April and with a decision as to interim relief being made at the same time. I am satisfied that such directions adequately balance the need for expeditious consideration of this matter and the need for adequate consideration of the issues.