Mr and Mrs ZMS -v- The proprietor of a school (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity OrderOrder

Appeal number: UA-2025-001298-HS

In The Upper Tribunal
(Administrative Appeals Chamber)

27 October 2026

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge Price

Between:

Mr and Mrs ZMS

-v-

The proprietor of a school

Anonymity Order

On appeal from:

Tribunal: Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal
Tribunal Case No: EH/868/24/00033
Decision Date: 27 February 2025

Notice: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment which may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

ORDER

  1. It is ordered under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the Appellants, their children or the Respondent in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the Appellants, their children or the Respondent.
  2. It is ordered that the Appellants shall be known as Mr and Mrs ZMS.
  3. It is ordered that the Respondent shall be known as ‘The proprietor of a school’.
  4. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal within 7 days of its issue for it to be varied or set aside.
  5. A copy of the order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.


    REASONS
  6. This application is made of the tribunal’s own volition.
  7. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases.
  8. I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle in the interests of justice and in order to protect the Appellant and also staff who work for the Respondent.
  9. The appropriate balance in this case is for an anonymity order to be made in the above terms because the Appellants bring the claim on behalf of their son who is minor and who is neurodiverse. The content of the appeal and the underlying evidence relate to sensitive personal information, including issues that go to his dignity. Although the appeal is primarily about a dispute between the Appellants and the Respondent, given the nature of the dispute, and the size and type of school, I consider it highly likely the Appellant’s son would be identifiable if either the school or his parents were named. In addition, the evidence also concerns the health of the school staff, which presents as a separate reason to anonymise the name of the responsible body.
  10. I am satisfied on the basis of the material before me that the Appellant’s son interests would be significantly harmed by his identification.
  11. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision being published online.
  12. I have considered whether there is any less restrictive measure which would still adequately protect the interests of the Appellant’s son, but am satisfied that there is not since it would or might lead to the Appellant’s son’s identification.
  13. The letters ZMS are not the initials of the name of the Appellants.