SAT -v- London Borough of Ealing (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003691

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

11 June 2026

Before:

HHJ Marquand
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
SAT
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Ealing
(Defendant)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the application for interim relief and the Defendant’s response to that application dated 6 November 2025

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 SAT and her son as SYT.

(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: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: No order as to costs.
  3. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The claim relies on personal medical information concerning the Claimant’s son, in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Refusal of permission: the claimant made an application for an urgent interim remedy and an order was made by Mr Justice Foxton on 24 October 2025 requiring the defendant to file a response that application, which they did in a document dated 6 November 2025. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error the matter was not put before a judge until now. The court has corresponded with the parties and the defendant indicated they would be filing an acknowledgement of service but have not done so. The claimant wishes the application to be determined.
  3. The Claimant seeks a mandatory order requiring Ealing Council to, amongst other matters: Immediately review and quash any previous decisions regarding the unsuitability of housing for the Claimant and her family; and allocate and provide suitable, stable accommodation that meets the needs of SYT. She seeks a prohibitory order restraining Ealing Council from: Providing or continuing to accommodate the family in housing that is unsuitable or unsafe for SYT and his family; Failing to take into account the professional recommendations of health, social care, and educational specialists regarding SYT’s needs. The urgency was said to arise due to application appreciation on 12-9-2025 of SYT’s behaviours.
  4. The claimant has 2 children, in particular SYT who was diagnosed ASD on 9-12- 2021. A decision was made on 29-7-2024 not to allocate band A medical priority but band B for housing allocation. The claimant has provided a number of reports including a medical report dated 15-11-2023 and a report from an OT from May 2024 OT report. The Claimant through solicitors challenged banding decision by letter dated 30 July 2024. In a letter dated 18 September 2024 to the Claimant the defendant declined to award a higher banding. The letter specifically considered section 149 Equality Act and told the Claimant of the right of review. On 30 January 2025 another OT report asks consideration is given to another room for SYT, but no urgency is indicated. A further OT report is requested on16 February 2025. A homelessness application is made on 22 May 2025 by a legal advisor on behalf of the claimant on the basis that it is not reasonable for the family to continue to occupy the current accommodation. Pre-action letter for judicial review was sent on 29-7-2025 re a failure to process the homelessness application.
  5. There is no clear decision by the defendant in the claim form that is being challenged by the claimant and certainly not one that is within 3 months of the date of issue. See the reference to quashing any decision previous decision. There is no evidence that the claimant alerted the defendant to the difficulties she says she experienced on 12 September 2025 and no medical evidence of these difficulties. There is no evidence of a decision taken by the defendant after the one dated 18 September 2024. Although the matter of urgency seems to have fallen away because of the time that elapsed it is difficult to see how the matter was so urgent when the proceedings were not received at the Administrative Court Office until 24 October 2025. The grounds that are advanced are no more than generalities disagreeing with the decisions that have been taken by the defendant. They do not point to any specific error of public law in any particular decision. No doubt the claimant is experiencing difficulties with the accommodation that she currently lives in with her family and is frustrated at the length of time that has elapsed. However, absent more that does not justify a claim for judicial review on the basis of the facts that are before me. There is no arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success and I refuse permission for judicial review. It therefore follows that I also refuse any interim relief. The Defendant has not claimed any costs and I make no order as to costs.

Signed: HHJ Marquand

Date: 11 June 2026