OLY -v- London Borough of Havering (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001705

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

6 May 2026

Before:

Clare Padley
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
OLY
(a child, by their litigation friend, PMY)

-v-

London Borough of Havering

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and appointment of a litigation friend

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY CLARE PADLEY SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Parties: The original Claimant’s child is substituted as the correct Claimant in this case.
  2. Litigation Friend: The Claimant’s mother is appointed as his Litigation Friend.
  3. 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 OLY and the Litigation Friend as PMY.

(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. Permission and interim relief: These applications should be determined by a judge or deputy judge on the papers following service of the Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s AOS and Summary Grounds of Defence which have now been filed or the expiry of time for service of a Reply.

REASONS

(1) Claimant and Litigation Friend: I am satisfied that the child should be named as the Claimant in this case and that the Claimant’s mother is an appropriate person to act as his Litigation Friend, following filing of a certificate of suitability dated 15 April 2026.

(2) Anonymity: The Claimant is a child and as such has a right to privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 2.

(3) Permission and interim relief: The Defendant has filed an AOS and Summary Grounds disputing this claim and states that the Claimant was due to start his new school (in line with his mother’s wishes and a draft amended EHCP) on 20 April 2026. At the time of allocation of this case for a decision, the Claimant’s time for filing a Reply had not yet expired, so it is not clear whether the Claimant accepts that this claim is now academic or if the applications for permission or interim relief are still pursued and if so, on what grounds.
The matter should be returned to a judge for consideration of these issues on the papers once a Reply has been filed or time for filing has expired.

Signed: Clare Padley
Date: 06/05/26