NWT -v- The London Borough of Ealing (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-000524

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 June 2026

Before:

HHJ Marquand
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
NWT
(a child by her mother and litigation friend, NET)
(Claimant)

-v-

The London Borough of Ealing
(Defendant)

Order

Upon the parties having agreed terms of settlement on 3 March 2026 and the settlement being approved by the Court

AND UPON THE Claimant issuing a claim for Judicial Review on 5 February 2026 and making an Application for expedition and anonymity on the same date.

AND UPON the Defendant’s social services department moving the Claimant from the area of the Defendant into the area of the London Borough of Hillingdon on 13th February 2026 as a result of concerns raised by the Claimant about her living arrangements.

AND UPON the Defendant notifying the London Borough of Hillingdon of the move, and therefore statutory responsibility for provision of the Claimant’s EHCP and/or statutory duty to provide suitable education thus no longer resting with the Defendant.

AND UPON the Claimant’s mother having her application to have a ‘no recourse to public funds’ restriction on her stay in the UK lifted and the Defendant thus assisting her to make applications for mainstream benefits and housing

AND UPON the parties agreeing that if in the unlikely event that the Defendant’s housing department places the Claimant and her mother back in the Defendant’s area the duties under s.19 Education Act 1996 and s.42 Children and Families Act 2014 would again fall on the Defendant, but that the Judicial Review Claim against the Defendant is academic if the Claimant and her mother live in another area.

ORDER BY HHJ Marquand (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 NWT and mother as NET.

    (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.

    AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY CONSENT:

    1. The Claimant’s Judicial Review Claim is immediately stayed and will be deemed withdrawn three months after the date of this order if no application is made by the Claimant to restore the case. An application to restore can only be made if Claimant has again been placed in the Defendant’s area.
    2. There shall be no order as to costs save that there shall be an assessment of claimant’s publicly funded costs in accordance with the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

    Signed: HHJ Marquand

    Date: 10 June 2026