October 14, 2025

NO -v- North Tyneside Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LDS-000075

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 October 2025

Before:

Alan Bates,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
NO
(Claimant)

-v-

North Tyneside Council
(Defendant)

and

(1) DE PAUL UK
(2) PQ
(3) SR
(Interested Parties)

Order

On the Court’s consideration of the papers for the purpose of determining whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of (i) the documents lodged by the Claimant, (ii) PQ’s witness statement dated 15 April 2025, (iii) the skeleton arguments that were provided by the Claimant and the Defendant for the hearing that took place on 17 April 2025, (iv) the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service, (v) the First Interested Party’s Acknowledgement of Service, (vi) the unsigned and undated document filed by the Defendant headed “STATEMENT OF GEMMA STONEBRIDGE”, and (vii) the Claimant’s witness statement dated 28 September 2025

ORDER BY ALAN BATES,
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Further provisions as to anonymity and reporting restrictions:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, the names of (i) the Second Interested Party (who is currently a child and who has been anonymised using the moniker ‘PQ’), (ii) the Claimant (who is PQ’s father and who has been anonymised using the moniker ‘NO’), and (iii) the Third Interested Party (who is PQ’s mother and who has been anonymised using the moniker ‘SR’) shall continue to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.

(b) Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and/or section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, there must be no publication of (i) the name, photographic image or likeness, or address of any of PQ, NO or SR, or (ii) any other information likely to lead to the identification of PQ, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4), no non-party many obtain a copy of any statement of case in these proceedings unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6).

(d) Any person seeking to vary or discharge any part of this paragraph of this Order, or to obtain a copy of a statement of case pursuant to CPR 5.4C, must make an application, served on each party.

Service on the Second and Third Interested Parties: The Claimant shall, within 5 calendar days of the date of this Order, file Certificates of Service confirming service of the claim on the Second Interested Party (PQ) and the Third Interested Party (SR).
Permission to apply for Judicial Review on Grounds 2 and 3:

(a) Permission to apply for Judicial Review on the following grounds is refused:

(i) Ground 2: the complaint that the Defendant has failed to acknowledge a duty towards PQ as a ‘Looked After Child’; and

(ii) Ground 3: the complaint that the Defendant, having failed to acknowledge PQ’s status as a ‘Looked After Child’, has not addressed serious safeguarding risks affecting PQ.

(b) Any application by the Claimant to renew his application for permission to apply for Judicial Review on Grounds 2 and 3 shall be made by him at the oral hearing directed further below in respect of Grounds 1 and 4 (and not in any other way) and shall be considered and determined by the Court on that occasion. If the Claimant wishes to renew his application for permission to apply for Judicial Review on Grounds 2 and 3, he must give notice to the other parties by way of making this clear within his skeleton argument for that hearing, setting out his reasons why he is continuing to seek permission for those grounds.

Permission to apply for Judicial Review on Grounds 1 and 2 – Listing of a hearing:

(a) The Court’s consideration of whether to grant permission to apply for Judicial Review on the following grounds is adjourned to be considered at an oral hearing (the “Oral Permission Hearing”):

(i) Ground 1: the complaint that the Defendant is failing to carry out its statutory duties to the Claimant under section 22(3) of the Children Act 1989; and

(ii) Ground 4: the complaint that the accommodation provided/arranged by the Defendant for PQ is not safe and suitable for her.

(b) The Oral Permission Hearing is listed to take place on Thursday 23 October 2025 at 10:30 a.m., with a time estimate of 1 hour. The hearing will take place as a remote hearing by Microsoft Teams or another video platform. (Information as to how to join the remote hearing will be provided by the Court Office to the parties in advance of the hearing.) Parties and their representatives are responsible for ensuring that they have access to appropriate equipment and a reliable internet connection so as to be able to attend the hearing.

(c) The Claimant, the Defendant, and any Interested Party who wishes to participate in the Oral Permission Hearing, must comply with the following directions:

(i) In these directions, the term ‘party’ (or ‘parties’) includes the Interested Parties.

(ii) The Defendant must, by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday 16 October 2025, file, and serve on the Claimant and the Interested Parties, a witness statement providing all the information required by paragraph 1 of the Order dated 28 August 2025. The witness statement must comply with the requirements of the CPR relating to the preparation of witness statements, including by being appropriately dated and headed, and including a signed statement of truth.

(iii) The Defendant shall prepare an electronic bundle containing all documents (other than legislation and authorities) which the Defendant’s solicitor considers that the Court may need to refer to for the purposes of the Oral Permission Hearing, and provide the same to the Court and the other parties by 2:00 p.m. on Friday 17 October 2025.

(iv) The Claimant is to file, and serve on the Defendant and the Interested Parties, a skeleton argument (a summary of the arguments he wishes to make at the Oral Permission Hearing), not longer than 8 pages, by 4:00 p.m. on Monday 20 October 2025.

(v) The Defendant is to file, and serve on the Claimant and the Interested Parties, a skeleton argument (not longer than 8 pages) for the Oral Permission Hearing by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday 21 October 2025.

(vi) The Second Interested Party is to file, and serve on the Claimant, the Defendant, and the Third Interested Party, a skeleton argument (not longer than 5 pages) for the Oral Permission Hearing by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday 21 October 2025.

(vii) The Third Interested Party is to file, and serve on the Claimant, the Defendant, and the Second Interested Party, a skeleton argument (not longer than 5 pages) for the Oral Permission Hearing by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday 21 October 2025.

(viii) Regardless of whether the First Interested Party wishes to attend the Oral Permission Hearing, there is no requirement for that party to provide a skeleton argument for the Oral Permission Hearing, but if that party wishes to file a skeleton argument or written submissions (not longer than 5 pages) for that hearing, then such document must be filed and served by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday 21 October 2025.

(ix) The Defendant shall prepare an electronic bundle of legislation and authorities (i.e. relevant case-law) that the Defendant’s solicitor considers that the Court may need to refer to for the purposes of the Oral Permission Hearing and provide the same to the Court and the other parties by 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday 22 October 2025.

(x) Any requirement in this paragraph to ‘serve’ a document on a party may be complied with by sending the document to an email address that has been used by that party for correspondence relating to matters that are the subject of these proceedings.

Defendant to ensure notification of this Order to PQ and to assist PQ in obtaining independent legal advice:

(a) The Defendant must forthwith ensure that a copy of this Order is provided to, and brought to the attention of: (i) PQ; and (ii) the Independent Reviewing Officer appointed by the Defendant for PQ (the “IRO”).

(b) The IRO must ensure that PQ is aware of the Oral Permission Hearing and discuss with PQ: (a) whether PQ wishes to participate in these proceedings; and (b) arrangements by which PQ could obtain independent legal advice from solicitors with a Legal Aid contract for community care cases and who could assess whether PQ has a sufficient level of understanding and ability to give instructions relating to these proceedings so as not to require a Litigation Friend.

Costs: Costs reserved.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity / reporting restrictions: Provision for the Claimant and the Second and Third Interested Parties to be anonymised was made in the Order of HHJ Jackson dated 17 April 2025. It is proportionate to impose reporting restrictions to protect the privacy of the person who is the subject of these proceedings, namely PQ. PQ is currently still a child. Further and in any event, the proceedings centres on medical and other matters relating to PQ which are of a highly personal and sensitive nature. There is a real risk that publicity regarding those matters could cause harm to PQ’s mental health (which the available evidence suggests may be quite fragile).

(2) Service on the Second and Third Interested Parties: The Claimant’s witness statement dated 28 September 2025 asserts that service of the claim was effected on the other parties; however, it appears that the Claimant has served a Certificate of Service only in respect of service on the Defendant. The Second and Third Interested Parties have not filed Acknowledgements of Service. In the circumstances, the Court requires further evidence, in the form of Certificates of Service from the Claimant, as to when and how the claim was served on those parties.

(3) Decisions on permission to apply for Judicial Review:

a. The Order I made dated 28 August 2025 was very clear as what the Court was requiring the Defendant to do. The Order required the Defendant to serve a witness statement providing specific information and exhibiting certain documents. The Defendant has not complied with that Order. It has filed a document headed “STATEMENT OF GEMMA STONEBRIDGE” (the “Unsigned Statement”) which provides some helpful information but which (i) is not signed, (ii) is not dated, and (iii) does not provide all of the specific information and documents that the Defendant was ordered to provide. The Court is thus again placed in a position where it is seeking to determine on the papers the question of permission to apply for Judicial Review without basic information as to the current position in terms of the accommodation and other support being provided for PQ. The Court records its displeasure at this non-compliance with its Order, which may be taken into account when the Court is deciding questions as to costs.

b. I am conscious that PQ will be turning 18 in January 2026 and will no longer be a child. If, however, PQ has been a ‘Looked After Child’, then the Defendant will continue to owe duties to PQ by reason of that former status. In any event, PQ is currently still a child and I do not have sufficient information before me to be able to decide now that the claim has become academic simply because PQ’s 18th birthday is not far away.

c. I do not currently have sufficient information before me to properly assess whether Ground 1 has a realistic prospect of success. It appears that the Defendant now accepts that PQ is a ‘Looked After Child’ for the purposes of section 22 of the Children Act 1989. However, the consequence of the Defendant’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s Order is that I do not have proper up-to-date information as to what the Defendant has done, and is doing, to carry out its Children Act duties to PQ. I therefore direct that Ground 1 be considered at an oral permission hearing.

d. I refuse permission for Grounds 2 and 3. It appears from the Unsigned Statement that the Defendant has now accepted that PQ is a ‘Looked After Child’. If that is right, then Grounds 2 and 3, to the extent that they add anything to the complaints raised under Grounds 1 and 4, have become academic. The Defendant’s acceptance that it owes duties to PQ as a ‘Looked After Child’ means that this issue as to PQ’s status is no longer in dispute between the parties. Whilst Grounds 2 and 3 also raise complaints that the Defendant is not discharging its duties to the Claimant, those complaints can be adequately analysed under Grounds 1 and 4.

e. I do not currently have sufficient information before me to properly assess whether Ground 4 has a realistic prospect of success. The consequence of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order is that I do not have proper up-to-date information as to the current accommodation arrangements for PQ and the safety and suitability of that accommodation. I therefore direct that Ground 4 be considered at an oral permission hearing.

(4) As the Defendant did not file a witness statement as required by my Order, it is essential that the Defendant now urgently do so, so that the Court has the information it requires in order to determine the question of permission to apply for Judicial Review in respect of Grounds 1 and 4. If the Defendant continues to fail to comply, then this may lead to the Court imposing costs or other sanctions on the Defendant, and/or imposing further requirements by way of an order backed with a penal notice.

(5) Defendant to ensure notification of this Order to PQ and to assist PQ in obtaining independent legal advice: An important dimension to these proceedings is the position/views of PQ who, though a child, is close to being legally an adult. The Court currently does not have a clear picture of PQ’s position/views. It appears from PQ’s witness statement from April 2025 that PQ was, at least at that time, aligning with the Claimant’s position that the accommodation that was being provided for PQ was unsuitable. On the other hand, PQ appears not to be in regular contact with the Claimant, and it would, in all the circumstances, be inappropriate for the Court to proceed on the basis that PQ’s interests are adequately represented by any other party to these proceedings. It appears from the Unsigned Statement that the Defendant has now appointed an IRO for the Claimant. The IRO should assist PQ in pursuing such options as may be available to obtain independent legal advice and potentially to be represented in these proceedings under Legal Aid. PQ may also be able to seek assistance from the National Youth Advocacy Service.

Signed: DHCJ Alan Bates

Date: 10th October 2025