AAZ -v- London Borough of Camden (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002064

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 May 2026

Before:

Tom Little KC,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
AAZ

-v-

London Borough of Camden

Order

On the Court’s own motion at the outset of an oral hearing on 8th May 2026 on the Claimant’s application for interim relief and with no opposition from the Defendant.

ORDER BY TOM LITTLE KC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  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 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 AAZ.

(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 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;

(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;

(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) Anonymity: The Claimant brings a claim in which there is reference to and heavy reliance on her family including two very young children. Their health is relevant to the issues. Similarly, the position of the Claimant’s sister.

(2) I took the initiative to raise this of my own motion at the outset of the hearing as the Claimant was not represented by an advocate and it seemed to me highly likely that an application should have been made. There are, in my judgement, at present compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1 and I make the order accordingly.

Signed: Tom Little KC

Date: 8th May 2026