OTF -v- London Borough of Bromley (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002123

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
OTF
(a child, by his mother and litigation friend, OPK)
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Bromley
(Defendant)

and

OUN
(the Claimant’s father)
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 23.12, 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HHJ Marquand (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Anonymity on the Court’s own consideration:

(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 OTF, his mother as OPK and father as OUN.

(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:

(a) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

(b) The application is certified as totally without merit.

  1. Costs: No order as to costs.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim relies on proceedings in the Family Court sitting in private There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Refusal of permission: The claimant is a child and the person who has brought the claim as the litigation friend is the claimant’s biological mother. On 18 March 2016 in the Family Court at Croydon it was ordered that the child was placed into the care of the defendant and the defendant was given permission to place the child for adoption. On the face of the order, the mother is recorded to have been represented at the hearing. The order was appealed and the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in an order made on 8 June 2016. A further order was made on 26 April 2017 and permission to appeal that order was refused in an order dated 26 July 2017. In the reasons given on the judge’s approach on whether or not to grant leave or oppose adoption was referred to as “legally correct”.

(3) There are 8 grounds for judicial review which refer back to the 2016 proceedings. The challenge can be summarised as relevant matters were not considered in the Family Court below and that consent to adoption was not dispensed with by lawful court order. It is said that the breaches by the defendant are ongoing.

(4) There seems no logical reason why this local authority is a defendant to what is a complaint that the Family Court and Court of Appeal did not consider what the claimant now considers to be relevant matters. The face of the order from 2016 records that the parties were represented before the court. The order was made 10 years ago. And it cannot be said that there is in reality a continuing breach of public law obligation by the defendant. In addition, if there were any true errors or fraud than those of the matters to apply to the Family Court to be dealt with (and I make no comment on whether there were any errors, which seems inherently unlikely). This claim for judicial review is utterly hopeless and bound to fail. I refuse permission for judicial review and certify the claim as totally without merit. The defendant has not included a claim for costs and therefore I make no order for costs.

Signed: HHJ Marquand

Date: 10 June 2026

CPR 54.12(7) APPLIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AT A HEARING.