Mouakoumba -v- London Borough of Camden (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC- 2026-LON-003627

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

18 August 2026

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
Albertin Chrishna Mouakoumba
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Camden
(Defendant)

and

MTG
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant,

ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC 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 Interested Party’’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Interested Party is to be referred to orally and in writing as MTG.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Interested Party or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Interested Party 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 Interested Party;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Interested Party, 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 this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Permission:

(a) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

(b) The application is certified as totally without merit.

  1. The application for interim relief

(a) The application is refused

(b) The application is certified as totally without merit.

  1. Limited Civil Restraint Order: An order is refused
  2. Costs: No order as to costs.

REASONS

Anonymity
(1) The Interested Party is a 12 year old child (DOB 14 January 2014) and has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Permission
(2) The Claimant applied for permission and for urgent consideration in relation to the welfare of the Interested Party, MTG a 12‑year‑old looked-after child.

The family court proceedings
(3) In May 2023 MTG was removed into care and became look after child.

(4) On 28 January 2026 there were proceedings before HHJ Oliver (official transcript provided, excluding judgment).

(5) On 10 April 2026 an injunction order was made restricting parental communication with the children except as authorised by the Defendant.

(6) On 15 April 2026 the order was approved by HHJ Oliver.

(7) On 16 July 2026 MTG was admitted to hospital following an incident at placement.

(8) On 22 July 2026 the Defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant reminding him of the injunction.

(9) On 24 July 2026 MTG was discharged from hospital and moved placement (according to Claimant).

(10) On 31 July 2026 the Defendant sent an email to the Claimant.

The judicial review proceedings
(11) On 5 August 2026 the Claimant filed a claim for service together with an Urgent Consideration Application and an application for interim relief,.

(12) The Claimant states that urgency arise from MTG’s admission to Queen’s Hospital on 16 July 2026 following a placement breakdown, The Defendant indicated that a further placement move is being considered, ongoing disputes regarding the circumstances of her admission, and the need for educational planning ahead of September 2026.

(13) The Claimant seeks judicial oversight of Camden’s decision-making concerning placement, safeguarding, education, therapeutic support, family contact and rehabilitation planning.

(14) However, the Claimant states that he does not seek by this claim to quash the Family Court care order and seeks interim including permission, expedition, disclosure of records and including education, safeguarding, rehabilitation and contact arrangements as set out in the attached draft seeking an abridgement of time for the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service to 3 days; and consideration of permission within 5 days.

(15) The Claimant challenges the continuing decisions and omissions of the Defendant concerning MTG a looked-after child, following her hospital admission on 16 July 2026, including:

  • placement and discharge planning;
  • Ground 2: Failure to promote educational achievementeducational provision and planning for September 2026;
  • therapeutic support;
  • family contact and communication restrictions; and
  • consideration of rehabilitation to parental care.

(15) The Claimant expressly states that he does not challenge the making of the Care Order itself but challenges the continuing exercise of the Defendant’s statutory functions after the Care Order.

(16) The Claimant’s grounds for judicial review can be summarised as follow:

(a) Ground 1: Failure to promote welfare;
(b) Ground 2: Failure to promote educational achievement;
(c) Ground 3: Placement stability;
(d) Ground 4: Safeguarding
(e) Ground 5 – Family Contact
(f) Ground 6 – Rehabilitation
(g) Ground 7 – Procedural Fairness
(h) Ground 8 – Irrationality and Failure to Take Relevant Considerations into Account;
and
(i) Ground 9 – Continuing Unlawfulness

(17) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused. I have decided that, notwithstanding the Claimant’s assertion that he does not seek to challenge the Care Order itself, the substance of the claim concerns the ongoing implementation of the Care Plan, including placement, contact, education, safeguarding, therapeutic support and rehabilitation. Those matters appear to fall squarely within the Family Court’s welfare jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989, particularly where proceedings remain.

(18) Accordingly, I have decided that the Claimant has an adequate remedy by utilising the procedures available to him in the Family Court and judicial review is, therefore, refused.

(19) I also certify the application for permission as being totally without merit,

Interim relief
(20) Interim relief is refused on the same grounds as permission and I, again, certify the application for interim relief as being totally without merit,

Limited civil restraint order

(21) I have made orders that two of the Claimant’s applications were totally without merit.

(22) Nonetheless. I have decided that in the present circumstance a limited civil restraint order is neither necessary or appropriate.

(23) I have no doubt that any further applications made by the Claimant will be carefully evaluated to assess whether a limited civil restraint order should now be made.

Signed: RICHARD CLAYTON KC

Date: 18 August 2026