July 10, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002804

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 July 2026

Before:

Vikram Sachdeva KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
SWA
(by his litigation friend, VAL)
(Claimant)

-v-

Milton Keynes City Council
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 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 VIKRAM SACHDEVA 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 SWA.

(iii) The Claimant’s litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as VAL.

(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 the Claimant’s litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or of the Claimant’s litigation friend 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.

Amendment. The Claimant is granted permission to amend the Statement of Facts and Grounds in accordance with the draft submitted on 1 July 2026 annexed to the N463 of the same date.
Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Interim relief. Interim relief is refused.
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) Of the court’s own motion I am persuaded that anonymity for the Claimant and his litigation friend is required for the proper administration of justice.

(2) The Defendant issued a draft EHCP on 22 May 2026 under s38 Children and Families Act 2014 and Regulation 13(1) of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. On 4 June the Defendant emailed stating that EOTAS would be considered for the future and that the current provision would continue until the end of the academic year (17 July 2026).

(3) When this claim was issued the decision under challenge was described as “the Defendant’s decision to cease the Claimant’s current educational package on 17 July 2026 without securing continuity arrangements, suitable replacement provision, or issuing a final [and] lawful and deliverable educational package thereafter”.

(4) Since then a final version of the EHCP was issued on 30 June 2026 under Regulation 14 which provides for the Claimant’s needs for the forthcoming academic year, and Amended Grounds have been filed. I consider it appropriate to permit the Claimant to amend the Statement of Facts and Grounds to challenge the new decision.

(5) The Amended Grounds (incorrectly annexed to an N463, rather than an N461, but I will waive that defect) are as follows:

(a) The final EHCP is materially incomplete and omits mandatory sections and/or required content.

(b) The new decision intensifies, rather than cures, the immediate risk of unlawful interruption to education.

(c) There is procedural unfairness and a continuing breach of statutory duty.

(d) There is a failure to take relevant considerations into account and there has been irrationality.

(e) Interim relief is necessary notwithstanding any alternative remedy argument, even though the Claimant has lodged an appeal with the SEND tribunal.

(6) The Claimant continues to seek a mandatory interim injunction requiring the Defendant to continue to secure and fund the Claimant’s current educational package beyond 17 July 2026 until further order.

(7) A direction is also sought requiring the Defendant to answer certain questions relating to the final EHCP including allegedly incomplete sections.

(8)There is also a suggestion that a costs capping order be made, although as Fordham J pointed out on 17 June 2026 this is not an Aarhus matter. It is unclear on what basis a costs limitation could be sought.

(9) The prescribed method of challenging the content of an EHCP is an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal, and there is a high bar to persuade the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in such circumstances: R (LW) v London Borough of Islington [2025] EWHC 703 (Admin). That test is not met here, the Claimant having in fact taken that alternative remedy and having appealed (see para 5 of electronic page 17 on bundle containing N463 dated 1 July 2026). I therefore find that none of the grounds of review are arguable.

(10) As to the interim mandatory order sought, the test for relief is proof of a strong prima facie case: Administrative Court Guide 2025 para 16.6.1 and R (RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd) v British Standards Institution [2024] EWCA Civ 530 at [87] and [112]. Although there is an assertion that without an interim mandatory order there will be “irreparable harm, including loss of educational continuity and deterioration in mental health” there is no convincing medical evidence to that effect, and I find that the test of a strong prima facie case is not met, in addition to the fact that the Administrative Court is not the correct forum for the claim (which is an independent reason for the interim relief application to fail). I therefore refuse the interim mandatory order.

(11) It is also inappropriate to order what are in substance Part 18 questions given that permission is to be refused, and that the correct procedure for Part 18 questions has not been followed.

Signed: VIKRAM SACHDEVA KC
Date: 9 JULY 2026