ALC -v- London Borough of Haringey (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2023-LON-003708

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

26 November 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

Between:

ALC

-v-

London Borough of Haringey

Order

On an application filed on 11 November 2024 by the Claimant for anonymity

AND UPON the Court considering the claimant’s application for anonymity pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and being satisfied, balancing articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, that non-disclosure of the claimant’s identity is necessary to protect her interests

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

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

  1. The Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher “ALC”.
  2. Pursuant to s.11 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.
  3. The parties must:

    a. when filing any statement of case; or
    b. in respect of any statement of case filed prior to this Order, within 7 days of this Order;

    also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the Claimant.
  4. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  5. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an application to the court, served on each party.

Reasons

The claimant seeks anonymity in order to protect her sensitive medical information. I have considered the alternative of protecting her medical information from being placed in the public domain but given the centrality of that information to this homelessness judicial review claim, I am of the view that the course that will better protect open justice is anonymisation. Having weighed the article 10 and article 8 rights, in my judgment, given the nature of the medical information, it is necessary to anonymise the claimant and make ancillary orders in the form of a reporting restriction and restriction on on-party access to unredacted statements of case.

Signed:
Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
26 November 2024