The Governing Body of Bromfords School -v- Essex County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002930

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

7 August 2026

Before:

Eleanor Grey KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
The Governing Body of Bromfords School
(Claimant)

-v-

Essex County Council
(Defendant)

and

(1) HA and HX
(2) Department for Education
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and further interim relief;

AND FOLLOWING consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by ELEANOR GREY KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Anonymity

  1. Pursuant to s39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933:

(a) the name of the child who is the subject of these proceedings is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(b) the child shall be referred to as “HK” and HK’s parents are to be referred “HA and HX”;

(c) There must be no publication of the identity of HK or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. In particular this shall cover the identification of HK’s residence, family and primary school.

  1. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

a) the parties must within 14 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the protected child;

b) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the protected child, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

c) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

  1. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Save as set out above, the application for urgent interim relief is adjourned. To the extent that any of the issues raised by the application remain live at the permission stage, they may be considered, if appropriate, by the judge determining the issue of permission, or other outstanding issues.
  3. Within 14 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant and Defendant shall:

a) consider whether the Court has been notified as to which, if any, of the matters raised in the application for urgent interim relief remain live and are said to require consideration at the permission stage;

b) each file an update with the Court (copied to the Interested Parties), clarifying this issue if it has not already been clearly addressed in any papers already filed and served by the parties.

Reasons

  1. This matter was put before me for consideration of the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief dated 25 June 2026. But before consideration of the papers and on 3 July 2026, the Court Office received an email from the Claimant’s solicitors stating:

    “Further to the sealed claim form (N461) and N244, the Claimant was informed by the Defendant at 14:05 today that this claim is no longer urgent.

    Therefore, we write to withdraw the N463 application for urgency and request that the Court does not process this. I can confirm the Defendant’s representatives are cc’d into this e-mail.”

    Anonymity.
  2. Despite the email above, the issue of anonymity for the child who is the subject of the proceedings on the court file remains live whilst the claim remains open and there is material on the Court record. In addition, the application for interim relief has not been formally withdrawn. Derogations from the principle of open justice are exceptional. But CPR 39.2 contemplates that an exception may be made to protect the interests of a child, and section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 gives the Court the power to prohibit publication of the identity of a child involved in civil court proceedings.
  3. In this case, the claim sets out extensive details of the personal circumstances of a child, including matters relating to their health and personal development. I am satisfied that the litigation intended to further the child’s interests should not have the effect of putting this information into the public domain. There are therefore compelling reasons for a limited derogation from the principle of open justice, to secure the confidentiality of that information. I therefore make orders pursuant to s39, and also under CPR 5.4C(4) to enable suitable anonymisation and protection of material on the Court file.

    Remaining Issues
  4. The application for interim relief has not been formally withdrawn, but what – if any – issues remain outstanding or require determination is not clear, on the material before me. I therefore make the further order and directions
    at (4) and (5) above.
  5. The papers were retained by me in the expectation that further pleadings would be lodged, including any Acknowledge of Service, and the issue of permission could be considered. But as of today (7 August) there are no more papers uploaded onto the Court files – although there may be documents received by the ACO but not yet processed. In the circumstances the case must be reallocated, for the consideration of the issue of permission and/or any other consequential matters, when appropriate.

Signed: Eleanor Grey KC