MRW -v- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-BHM-000287

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

4 August 2026

Before:

HHJ Richard Williams,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

MRW
(Claimant)

-v-

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration/directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HHJ Richard Williams sitting as a Judge of the High Court:

  1. Anonymity:

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

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “MRW”.

(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 parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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 is granted to dispense with the need for a Litigation Friend.
  2. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s application for abridgement of time is refused.

(b) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for interim relief at the same time as filing and serving their Acknowledgment of Service.

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge for a decision whether to grant permission/interim relief as soon as possible thereafter.

REASONS

Anonymity: C claims to be a minor child. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Dispensing with the need for a Litigation Friend: C’s legal representatives say that they have spoken to C on multiple occasions and are satisfied that C is able to understand and consider the advice given, and to give appropriate instructions.

Abridgement of time: C seeks to challenge an age assessment dated 22 April 2026. The claim was filed on 21 July 2026. No explanation is given for the delay in making the claim. I am not persuaded that it is necessary or just to abridge the time for D to respond to the claim.

Signed: HHJ Richard Williams
Dated: 4 August 2026