BIP -v- President of the Family Division and others, and BIP -v- HM Courts and Tribunal Service (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-000082 and AC-2025-BHM-000151

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

19 June 2025

Before:

Mrs Justice Lieven

Between:

The King on the application of
BIP

-v-

President of the Family Division, Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, CAFCASS, HM Courts and Tribunal Service, Northampton Children’s Trust, Judicial Office, Director of Public Prosecutions, Northamptonshire Police

and

The King on the application of
BIP

-v-

HM Courts and Tribunal Service

and

BFT
(Interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN

  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 and Interested Party’s names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    ii) they are to be referred to orally and in writing as BIP and BPT.
    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) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Adjournment of permission to a hearing:
    a) The application for permission to apply for judicial review and interim relief is adjourned to be determined at a hearing on 14 July 2025.
    b) The hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 2 hours, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.
    c) Within 7 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
    i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
    ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
    iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
    iv) this Order;
    v) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
    d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
    i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
    ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
    iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
    e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
    f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: The claim relies on personal information relating to Family Proceedings making anonymity necessary for the protection of the child in those proceedings. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Adjournment of permission/interim relied to a hearing:
    The nature of the application for interim relief is such that it is not appropriate to consider it without a hearing. Since this is necessary it appears a more appropriate use of judicial time for permission to be considered at the same time.