NBH -v- Cambridgeshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-003186

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:

Duncan Atkinson KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
NBH
(supported by her litigation friend, NCB)
(Claimant)

-v-

Cambridgeshire County Council
(Defendant)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

ORDER BY DUNCAN ATKINSON 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 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 “NBH” and her mother and litigation friend is to be referred to as “NCB”.

(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 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;
(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;
(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. Appointment of Litigation friend:

    Pursuant to the N235 Certificate of Suitability, and in view of the Claimant’s age and issues, NCB’s appointment as NBH’s litigation friend is confirmed.
  2. Expedition:

    This claim shall be dealt with on an expedited basis, in accordance with the case management directions below.
  3. Rolled-up hearing:

    The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be listed as a “rolled up” hearing. If permission is granted, the court will proceed immediately to determine the claim.
  4. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Claimant must, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, file an undertaking to pay the continuation fee (see below) if permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

(b) The requirement for the Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service is dispensed with.

(c) The Defendant must, within 14 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(d) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (b) above.

(e) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hardcopy versions of the hearing bundle. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 10 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 5 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 5 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 3 hours. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant is a child. Further, the claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Abridgement of time/expedition: There are compelling reasons for expedition in this case: see in particular Waller LJ’s observations about the delay in H v East Sussex County Council [2009] EWCA Civ 249; [2009] ELR 161 being “unsatisfactory”, at [13]. I deem it appropriate to abridge the time for compliance with directions necessary given the urgent need for resolution of the issues raised by this claim in the best interests of the Claimant. It is important that there is a final resolution of the issues as soon as possible.
  3. I have directed a rolled up hearing for the same reasons. The Claimant is a child with significant special educational needs. Section 19, Education Act imposes duties on the Defendant in the circumstances identified in this Claimant’s case. These are “hard edged legal duties” for the reasons set out in relation to this Defendant in R (JSC) v Cambridgeshire Council [2026] EWHC 68 (Admin). The response of the Defendant to the issues raised by the Claimant will be important to the determination of the application. Given that consideration and given that there is to be a rolled up hearing at the first achievable date, I do not grant the interim relief sought, which would prejudge the issues to be determined in due course.

Signed: Duncan Atkinson KC

Date: 16/07/2026