ZGB -v- North Yorkshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LDS-000148

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

29 June 2026

Before:

Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC
(Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
ZGB
(a child, by his litigation friend, JXM)
(Claimant)

-v-

North Yorkshire Council
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review, and urgent consideration

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY MARCUS PILGERSTORFER KC
(DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)

  1. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 13 July 2026.

(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm 17 July 2026.

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge as soon as possible thereafter to consider the issue of permission and (if permission is granted) any further expedition that is appropriate.

  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, and that of his younger sibling and litigation friend, 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 ZGB; and

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

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

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, his sibling or his litigation friend, 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.

REASONS

(1) By this claim, C wishes to bring a claim of judicial review in respect of an ongoing failure to provide suitable full-time education contrary to s19 Education Act 1996 and/or secure special educational provision contrary to s42 Children and Families Act 2014.

(2) Expedition: There is an application for urgent consideration and expedition. This arises from C having been unable to attend the school named on his EHCP since October 2025. He is receiving 2 sessions of 3 hours each week at ZEN, without formal education being delivered. Reliance is placed on the ongoing harm caused to C and impact on his sibling. It is said that D “seem to be no further forward in agreeing to provide education for him, despite serious concerns being expressed at the most recent Child in Need meeting, and clear indication from the local authority Educational Psychologist and NHS Speech and Language Therapist.”

(3) I am willing to grant expedition, bearing in mind:

a. the nature of the duties relied on;
b. the timeline over which pre-action correspondence and the other events referred to in Section 2 of the N463 form have taken place;
c. the need for D to have a fair opportunity to respond (as is acknowledged by C in the application); and
d. the pleaded impacts on C, his sibling and family.

(4) I am, however, not willing at this stage to dispense with the consideration of permission on the papers. In my view it is appropriate to expedite the filing of the Acknowledgment of Service and any Reply and then the consideration of permission. Thereafter, if permission is granted, consideration can be given to whether to expedite the timetable to a final hearing.

(5) Anonymity: The claim concerns a child and will require consideration of the Claimant’s personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and rights pursuant to Art 8 ECHR. It is also relevant to consider the position of the Claimant’s younger sibling when assessing that claim. That sibling also has privacy rights which are engaged by the bringing of this claim. Against that I must weigh the very strong public interest in open justice, including rights derived from Art 10 ECHR. In my judgment there are compelling reasons making it necessary for there to be limited derogations from the principle of open justice as set out in my order in paragraph 3. The derogations are limited to the Claimant’s identity, that of his sibling and his litigation friend (the latter to prevent the identification of the Claimant/his sibling). Otherwise the open justice principle can be given effect. The derogations are necessary to safeguard and give effect to the privacy rights I have referred to.

Signed: Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, DHCJ
Date: 29 June 2026