SO -v- Milton Keynes City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001995

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

18 June 2024


Margaret Obi (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)


The King on the application of
SO (by her mother and litigation friend CO)


Milton Keynes City Council


ORDER by Margaret Obi (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

UPON considering the Claimant’s application for anonymity, permission, and urgent application for interim relief



1. Anonymity is granted to the Claimant pursuant to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The Claimant will be referred to as SO and her Litigation Friend, CA, in these proceedings.

2. No person or body, shall by any means, whether orally or in writing or electronically, or by any way of social media or any other way, directly or indirectly: (i) Publish or communicate information or any part of it concerning SO and CA. (ii) Cause, enable, assist or encourage the publication or communication, the information or any part of it, concerning SO or CA. In particular, this should cover publication of SO’s residence, family, and any information in relation to her siblings.

3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 2 above.

Permission and Interim Relief

4. The Defendant shall file and serve, if so advised, an Acknowledgement of Service within 14 days of the date of service of this Order.

5. The applications for permission and interim relief are adjourned and will be listed for hearing in court, on notice to the Defendant, with a time estimate of half a day.

6. The hearing shall be listed no earlier than 3 weeks from the date of service of this order, and no later than 29 July 2024.

7. The parties must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 3 days before the date of the hearing.


8. Costs reserved.


1. The Claimant seeks permission to challenge
i. the Defendant’s continuing failure as from 10 March 2023 to present to deliver the provision in Section F of the Claimant’s EHC plan;
ii. the Defendant’s decision of 30 May 2024 to refuse to provide occupational therapy; and
iii. the Defendant’s continuing failure to deliver the terms of Section F of the Claimant’s EHC from 3 June 2024 despite assurances to do so.

2. The remedies sought in the substantive judicial review claim appear to be the same as those sought on an urgent interim basis However, the Claimant sets out slightly different substantive relief in the grounds and so the position is not entirely clear.

3. The Claimant has complex needs and the merits of the claim need to be considered as soon as possible.

4. An oral hearing would illicit the scope of the claim and the court will be better informed as regards:
i. the Defendant’s current response to the claim;
ii. whether the claim is arguable with a realistic prospect of success;
iii. whether the application for interim relief should be granted.