AA -v- Leeds City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LDS-000104

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

17 December 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Saffman,
sitting in retirement as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
AA

-v-

Leeds City Council

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by His Honour Judge Saffman sitting in retirement as a Judge of the High Court:

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “AA”.

(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 any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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 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 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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

Anonymity:

  1. The court is conscious of the principle that an anonymity order is exceptional because it is a fundamental precept that the administration of justice takes place in public. An anonymity order is a derogation from the principle of open justice.
  2. The court is further conscious of the fact that an anonymity order ought not to be made merely because the parties consent to it.
  3. In this case an anonymity order is appropriate because it is necessary to protect the interests of the claimant because of the risk that, as a vulnerable asylum seeker, he is in danger of being targeted by those with a grudge against asylum seekers and the details of this claim include assertions of the treatment of the claimant which are of an intensely private nature.
  4. There is no need for an order dispensing with a litigation friend. The claimant is, even on his own account, 18 years old since he asserts he was born on 20 November 2007

Dated 17th December 2025