August 12, 2026

PBN -v- Hertfordshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001692

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

11 August 2026

Before:

Duncan Atkinson KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
PBN
(Claimant)

-v-

Hertfordshire County Council
(Defendant)

Order

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

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

ORDER BY DUNCAN ATKINSON KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

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 PBN.

(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.

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.

Permission to apply for judicial review:

(a) Permission is granted on grounds 1 and 4.

(b) Permission is refused on grounds 2, 3 and 5.

Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 35 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.

(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) 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 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard- copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(e) 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 21 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 14 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 7 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.

(i) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim concerns a child and decisions from private Family Court proceedings which themselves attracted anonymity. The Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and there is a need to protect the child implicated in the claim. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Permission: The Claim concerns the Defendant’s preparation and retention of a Child and Family Assessment (‘CFA’), dated 6/8/2025 following a safeguarding referral from the child’s school.

(3) Ground 1: the Claimant argues that there was procedural unfairness in the preparation of this CFA. He relies on the outcome of the Stage 2 complaint, which found deficiencies in procedural fairness, professional curiosity and the balance of analysis. The Defendant accepts that parental engagement in that preparation of that CFA “fell below acceptable practice standards”, and that the Claimant “was not provided with a timely or meaningful opportunity to be consulted or to respond”. In the light of the Stage 2 outcome and these concessions, this ground is reasonably arguable.

(4) Ground 4: the Defendant concedes that the retention of a safeguarding record engages Article 8, ECHR. Where such a record, namely a CFA, was reached by an arguably flawed and unfair process, it is reasonably arguable that its retention is not justified or proportionate, and thus that there is an arguable breach of Article 8.

(5) I do not consider that Ground 5, continuing public law wrong, adds anything to this argument. In relation to this ground, moreover, the Defendant is right to rely on the distinction, recognised in R(AB) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2015] EWHC 1238 (Admin) between the unlawful dissemination of inaccurate safeguarding information and the lawful retention of professional records.

(6) Grounds 2 and 3: The Claimant alleges that insufficient weight was given to earlier Family Court decisions. However, the CFA was required to consider current safeguarding risks and it is not reasonably arguable that there was an inappropriate focus on contemporaneous material. Against that background, it is not reasonably arguable that the decision reached in the CFA was not a reasonable professional response to that material. It is not, therefore, reasonably arguable that it was irrational.

Signed: Duncan Atkinson KC
Date: 11/8/2026