CH -v- The London Borough of Enfield (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003667
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
CH (By his Litigation Friend GB)
-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 urgent consideration and interim relief.
ORDER by TOM LITTLE KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as CH and the Litigation Friend as GB. 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 CH and the Litigation Friend as GB.
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 Litigation Friend 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 and the Litigation Friend is strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the rights of the Claimant and the Litigation Friend and further there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure to justify interfering with the Claimant’s Article 8 rights and those of the Litigation Friend.
2. The Claimant seeks an order that goes beyond that which I have so far ordered in that includes reference to a number of other individuals. The necessity for such an order can be considered in due course.