MHR and others -v- City of York Council and others (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LDS-000094

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

23 April 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Hill DBE

Between:

(1) MHR
(2) NEL
(by her mother and Litigation Friend MHR)
(3) PNL
(by his mother and Litigation Friend MHR)
(Claimants)

-v-

(1) City of York Council
(2) Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
(3) Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
(4) York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
(Defendants)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice Hill DBE

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the names of all three Claimants 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 MHR, NEL and PNL as set out above.

(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 First Claimant must by 4.30 pm on 30 April 2026 file and serve a copy of the bundle already filed, redacted throughout to omit the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of any of the Claimants and replacing all references to their names with the ciphers given in paragraph 1(a)(ii) above;

(ii) this bundle shall replace the bundle already filed;

(iii) no unredacted documents shall be provided to any non-party under CPR 5.4C; and

(iv) all further documents filed by the parties shall be redacted throughout to omit the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of any of the Claimants and to replace all references to their names with the ciphers given in paragraph 1(a)(ii) above.

  1. Any party affected by this anonymity order may apply on notice to vary or set aside the relevant parts of the order.
  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. Timetable for service and decision on interim relief:

(a) The First Claimant shall by 4.30pm on 27 April 2026 serve on each Defendant and file at court a Certificate of Service confirming service of the application for urgent consideration, the claim form and the bundle on each of the Defendants;

(b) Each Defendant shall by 4.30pm on 30 April 2026 serve on the First Claimant and file at court a response to the application for urgent consideration; and

(c) The application for interim relief shall be placed before a Judge of the Administrative Court on 1 May 2026 or as soon as practicable thereafter for determination, and further directions if appropriate, bearing in mind the 6 May 2026 date referred to below.

(d) Liberty to any party to apply to vary or set aside this order on 24 hours’ notice to the other parties.

REASONS

Anonymity:

This case involves highly personal matters relating to the medical care being given to the Claimant’s children. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Timetable for service and decision on interim relief:

  1. The Claimants seek to challenge a series of decisions by the Defendants. It is not immediately obvious that all are public law decisions amenable to judicial review. The claim is relation to the Second Claimant is also unclear.
  2. However, there is no evidence on the court file that the First Claimant has, on behalf of herself and the other Claimants, engaged in pre-action correspondence with the Defendants or that they are on notice of the application for urgent interim relief or the claim for judicial review. I note that section 6 of the Claimants’ application for urgent consideration addressing service is blank.
  3. The Defendants are entitled to an opportunity to respond to the application before any order is made; and the court is likely to be assisted by their views.
  4. Further, the application is not so urgent that any order should be made without hearing from the Defendants.
  5. The First Claimant has identified two aspects of urgency: (i) 17 April 2026, as the date on which a child protection review conference was due to take place (see draft order at bundle page 14(a)); and (ii) 6 May 2026, as the date by which she contends that there is a risk of bone incarceration in the Third Claimant (bundle, page 11(c) and 12 (b) and order at bundle page 14(a)) (albeit that this assertion has not been clearly evidenced, and the Defendants should address whether they accept it in their response).
  6. The claim and application were not in a form that could be issued by the court until 21 April 2026, and so date (i) has already passed. The timetable I have set is intended to make allowance for date (ii).

Signed: Mrs Justice Hill DBE
Dated: 23 April 2026