CBC -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003174

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

15 October 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

Between:

The King on the application of
CBC

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

and

(1) CBS
(2) COA
(3) CSD
(4) CSL
(5) CGN
(6) COL
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for directions for anonymity and for expedition of the claim

And on the Claimant’s application by Application Notice dated 8 October 2025 for permission to reply on the statement of Sir Nicholas Kay KCMG, dated 8 October 2025.

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

ORDER by The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

  1. 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 and the names of the Interested Parties shall 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 CBC, the Interested Parties shall be referred to as CBS, COA, CSD, CSL, CGN and COL, respectively.
  2. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or the Interested Parties or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of them in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (iii) 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 or the Interested Parties;
    (iv) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or the Interested Parties, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    (v) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  5. The application to rely on the statement of Sir Nicholas Kay KCMG dated 8 October 2025 is allowed.
  6. Any application by the Defendant pursuant to section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, shall be made by due date for filing and service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service.
  7. The Claimant shall file and serve any Reply within 3 days of the day on which the Defendants’ Acknowledgment of Service is served.
  8. Within 4 days of the Claimant’s compliance with paragraph 7 above, the papers relevant to the application for permission to apply for judicial review, shall be placed before a judge for the consideration of permission. If permission to apply for judicial review is granted, the court shall consider what (if any) further directions to make for the expedition of the determination of the claim.
  9. Following the due date for filing and service, pursuant to 8 above, the papers in this case shall, as soon as practicable, be referred to a judge for consideration of the application for permission to apply for judicial review. The remainder of the Claimant’s application for expedition shall be considered at that time.

Reasons

  1. Given the Claimant’s circumstances and those of the Interested Parties, as described in the Application Notice filed on 17 September 2025, it is appropriate for them to be anonymised in these proceedings.
  2. The claim concerns a decision under the ARAP scheme. The Claimant has sought a modest amount of expedition. The Defendant opposed the direction at §5 of the Order on the basis that more time may be needed to decide whether to make a section 6 application. I do not accept that submission. The Defendant will by now be familiar with the reasons why the ARAP application was refused and will therefore be able, relatively promptly to know whether any material in respect of which a section needs to be made will be material to its response to the claim. Further, the Defendant will have the usual 3-week period to formulate his defence to the claim; that period ought to be sufficient in this case to prepare any section 6 application that may be required.
  3. Overall, therefore, I am satisfied that the degree of expedition sought by the Claimant is appropriate and I have made directions accordingly. If permission to apply for judicial review is granted, the court should consider whether to expedite the hearing of the claim and give such further directions as are necessary.
  4. I am also satisfied that the matters set out in the statement of Sir Nicholas Kay KCMG may assist the court in the determination of this case. The defendant considers the content to be irrelevant. The statement is concise, as are the matters covered in the evidence. Admission of this evidence (and any consequent need to respond to it) will not place the Defendant under any undue burden.