June 23, 2025

YLG and YLH -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001260

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 June 2025

Before:

Clare Padley,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
(1) YLG
(2) YLH
(Claimants)

-v-

Hampshire County Council
(Defendant)

and

XTS (headteacher of School A)
(Interested Party)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY CLARE PADLEY
(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 Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘YLG’.

(iii) the Second Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘YLH’.

(iv) the Claimants’ child is to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘YLJ’

(v) the Interested Party is to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘XTS’

(vi) the Claimants’ child’s school is to be referred to orally and in writing as “School A”

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 Claimants;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £4,805.30
Further provision as to costs:

(a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

5. 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

Anonymity:
(1) No application for anonymity or reporting restrictions has been made by the Claimants, who are litigants in person, but the documents name the Claimants’ child throughout, discuss his mental and physical health conditions and identify the school that he attends. I consider that as this claim relies on personal information in which the Claimants’ child has a right to privacy, there are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1 and the Court has therefore made an anonymity order of its own volition.
Permission:
(2) The Claimants seek permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the issuing of Penalty Notices dated 21 November 2024 under section 444 of the Education Act 1996 to both Claimants in respect of their child’s absence from his junior school, School A, between 21 and 25 October 2024.
(3) The Claimants accept that they took their child, YLJ, out of school on a family holiday between those dates, after having been refused permission to do so by the Interested Party, as Headteacher of School A. They paid the penalty charges on 7 December 2024 but now seek to challenge the issue of the Penalty Notices.
(4) They are seeking an order quashing the Penalty Notices, a mandatory order requiring the Defendants to amend their child’s attendance records to indicate that his absence between 21 and October 2024 has been retrospectively authorised in light of the exceptional circumstances and a declaration from the Court that the Penalty Notices were issued incorrectly.
(5) The claim was received by the Court on 11 April 2025 and issued on 24 April 2025. Claims for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months of the decision being challenged. The Claimants are seeking an extension of time for bringing this claim on the grounds that this application was originally filed with the court on 17 February 2025 (just within the 3-month time limit), however it was sent back by the court due to the application not being submitted in one bundle and other minor errors, which have now been corrected. No specific explanation is provided for the delay since that time, and it is notable that the parties on the claim form dated 11 April 2025 are different from the earlier claim.
(6) The Defendant resists this application for permission on the grounds that it is out of time and is of no merit.
(7) The Claimants asked permission to take their child out of school on a family holiday on 14 October 2024. They accept that their request was refused but they did not challenge that refusal decision. Instead, they took their child out of school on an unauthorised holiday. Although there is a factual dispute between the parties about their child’s expected attendance, the Claimants appear to accept that they did commit offences under section 444(1) of the Act.
(8) Their claim is based on the premise that the Interested Party acted irrationally by issuing them with penalty notices in respect of their deliberate and admitted offences under the Act. For the reasons set out in the Summary Grounds of Defence, the decision to issue penalty notices, whilst a discretionary decision, was plainly one which was open to the Defendant, and I do not consider that the claim that this decision was irrational, is arguable.
(9) The claimants initially attempted to lodge a different claim form close to the expiry of the three months on 17 February 2025 and the claimants have provided no explanation in the new claim form for their delay before February 2025 or the further two-month delay since that time and given no good reason why an EOT should be granted.
(10) That said, I note from the Claimants’ witness evidence in the bundle, and as acknowledged by the Defendant in their response, that the Claimants’ son was diagnosed early this year with a very serious illness and is receiving treatment. Whilst this information is not relevant to the merits of their challenge, it may be relevant to their EOT application.
(11) In light of my decisions on the Claimant’s substantive grounds, it is unnecessary to consider whether this claim should also be refused on the basis that it is out of time, but this issue can be raised on any application for renewed permission if advised.
(12) As permission has been refused, the Defendant is entitled to costs of preparing the AOS. The costs have been summarily assessed based on the Schedule of Costs.

Signed: Clare Padley
Date: 13/06/25