AKA -v- The London Borough of Enfield (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003311

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

14 November 2024

Before:

Tom Little KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
AKA

-v-

The London Borough of Enfield

Order

INITIAL APPLICATION FOR ANONYMITY FOR THE CLAIMANT  

Having considered the papers in advance of determining the issue of permission to bring judicial review proceedings.

ORDER by TOM LITTLE KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge  

1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as AKA and pursuant to CPR 39.2 and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant without the leave of the court. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge this order.

2. Pursuant to CPR 5.4 a person who is not party to these proceedings may not obtain a copy of any document from the Court file unless the document has been anonymised and/or redacted so as to refer to the Claimant as  AKA.

3. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice. For that purpose a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office.

Reasons

1. In light of the nature of the claim and the reasons given in support of this judicial review claim and having  considered the Article 8 rights of the Claimant and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression as well as the principle of open justice I am satisfied that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the rights of the Claimant  and further there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of the Claimant’s identity to justify interfering with the Claimant’s Article 8 rights.