X (A Child), Re

A challenge to a public body’s decision about disclosure of a serious case review is a matter of administrative law. It must be brought by judicial review under CPR Part 54, rather than by an application in the Family Court or an ordinary application in the High Court.

Permission may be refused where the claim is out of time and no good reason for extending time is shown, or where no recognised public-law ground is arguable. Relevant grounds include procedural unfairness, error of law, misapplication of the statutory scheme and irrationality.

The father of a child subject to a care order sought disclosure of the overview report from a serious case review. The Local Safeguarding Children Board had decided not to publish the report and refused the father a copy, although he had been allowed to read it on three occasions.

The application was issued in the care proceedings and transferred to the High Court because it raised administrative-law issues. The central question was whether it had to proceed by judicial review.

1. The Local Safeguarding Children Board was a public body, independent of the local authority. Under the statutory scheme, it was for the Board, rather than the local authority or the court, to decide whether the serious case review materials should be published: Re X and Y (Executive Summary of Serious Case Review: Reporting Restrictions) [2012] EWCA Civ 1500; [2013] 2 FLR 628.

2. The father’s application was a free-standing challenge to the Board’s decision. It was not an application for disclosure into pending proceedings or for a reporting restriction order. It therefore had to be brought by judicial review under CPR Part 54. The court treated it as an application for permission to apply for judicial review.

3. The claim was substantially out of time. Under CPR 54.5(1), a claim must be filed promptly and within three months unless time is extended for good reason. No good reason was shown.

4. The father identified no arguable public-law error. His reasons for seeking the report did not establish procedural unfairness, error of law, misapplication of the statutory scheme or irrationality. The Board had carefully considered the relevant material, including psychiatric advice, and was entitled to conclude that compelling reasons justified non-publication. Its process could not be faulted.

5. The application was dismissed. The court declined to refuse permission merely because the claim lacked practical substance, since that objection was unconvincing; the outcome followed from delay and the absence of an arguable public-law ground.

The judgment records an unsuccessful challenge to the care order in the Court of Appeal and a later withdrawn discharge application. The present disclosure application was transferred from the Family Court to the High Court and dismissed.