MFH -v- Cambridgeshire County Council (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-003151

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

16 July 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

Between:

The King
on the application of
MFH
(by his Litigation Friend, MLH)
(Claimant)

-v-

Cambridgeshire County Council
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an expedited timetable and urgent interim relief.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant.

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

  1. The application for expedition is granted.
  2. The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds shall be filed and served within 7 days of the date of this order.
  3. The Claimant shall file and serve any reply within 5 days of receipt of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service.
  4. Upon receipt of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and any Reply by the Claimant, the papers shall be placed before the single judge for determination of the permission application.
  5. The Defendant shall complete the outstanding steps in the EHC needs assessment process and notify the Claimant whether it proposes to issue an EHC Plan within 14 days of the date of this Order. If a plan is to be issued, the Defendant shall issue an EHC Plan within 28 days of the date of notifying the Claimant that intends to issue the same.
  6. The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 5 above, any such application to be served on the Claimant.

    THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 6 ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  7. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identities of the Claimant and the Litigation Friend their address or any matter likely to lead to their identification:
    (a) Shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court;
    (b) Shall be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public and pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
  8. The Claimant shall be referred to as MFH in these proceedings. The Litigation Friend shall be referred to as MLH.
  9. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4) 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 and his Litigation Friend. If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to their identification, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time.
  10. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant, and the Litigation Friend have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
  11. Costs in the case.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant seeks permission to apply for judicial review of the Defendant’s ongoing failure to complete an Education, Health and Care (“EHC”) needs assessment for the Claimant and to decide whether to issue an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales prescribed by the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. The Claimant has a range of special educational needs, primarily in cognition and learning. The Claimant seeks for his claim to be expedited and seeks interim relief in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to complete the outstanding steps of the EHC Assessment.
  2. Where the urgent interim relief sought is a mandatory order against a public body, a strong prima facie case needs to be shown. The consideration of the balance of convenience involves balancing the harm to the claimant that would be caused if interim relief is not granted and the claim later succeeds against the harm to the defendant, any third parties and the public interest that would be caused if interim relief is granted and the claim later fails (R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1425).
  3. The request for an EHC Needs Assessment was made on 17 July. The Defendant accepted the need for an EHC needs assessment of the Claimant on 2 September 2025. The 16-week deadline for deciding whether to issue an EHC Plan expired on 6 November 2025. The 20-week deadline or issuing a final EHC Plan expired on 4 December 2025. As of 7 July 2026 the Defendant has not made any decision. Accordingly, the breach is continuing and has lasted some 48 weeks. The Defendant concedes the breaches alleged and attributes this to a failure to obtain input from an educational psychologist due to unprecedented demand and the national shortage of educational psychologists. However, the Defendant received the Educational Psychology report on 1 June 2026. No progress has been made despite assurances made in the Defendant’s Pre-Action Protocol Response and the case has not been submitted to panel.
  4. The Claimant plainly has a strong prima facie case. Damages are plainly an insufficient remedy in the circumstances of this case. Given the continuing prejudice to the Claimant’s education the balance of convenience falls clearly in favour of granting the interim relief sought. It is further appropriate to expedite the claim for the same reasons.
  5. Whilst there is no formal application for anonymity, the Claimant is a protected party as a vulnerable 10-year-old child with complex special educational needs. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the Claimant and his Litigation Friend to be anonymised.
  6. An order for anonymity is a derogation from the principle of open justice. Any such derogation will be exceptional and based on necessity. In this case, an anonymity order is strictly necessary.
  7. With respect to the application for anonymity, the Claimant is a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21.1(2)(d). The Claimant is a minor aged 10 years old and this case relates to his educational needs. In the circumstances, privacy is necessary to protect the interests of a protected party. Having regard to the particular importance of the principle of open justice and the Art 8 and Art 10 rights engaged, the anonymity order granted is the minimum necessary derogation from the principle of open justice to achieve this. In circumstances where the Litigation Friend for the Claimant is his mother, permitting the disclosure of the identity of the Litigation Friend would inevitably lead to the disclosure of the identity of the Claimant, defeating the purposes of the anonymity order in respect of the Claimant.

Signed: Mr Justice MacDonald