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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002591

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

7 August 2025

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Chamberlain

Between:

The King on the application of
CMD

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, expedition and other directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN

  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 names of the Claimant, his wife and children are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) those individuals are to be referred to orally and in writing as follows: CMD (the Claimant), ZCW (the Claimant’s wife), CNL, CAO and CST (the Claimant’s three children).
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant, his wife or their children or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) 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;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Application for expedition: The papers are to be referred to the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court or a judge nominated by him as soon as possible after the latest date for the filing of a Reply.
  3. Liberty to apply: The parties have liberty to apply. Any such application is reserved to the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court of a Judge nominated by him.
  4. Costs: Costs reserved

Reasons

The claim should be determined quickly, but an abridgment of time for the Acknowledgment of Service and Reply would not be justified given the security assessments which occasioned the discharge of the super-injunction (see Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Ltd [2025] EWHC 1806) and the need to ensure that the Defendant has a proper time to consider its response. It is inappropriate to expedite any substantive hearing at this stage, as permission has not yet been considered. The directions set out above provide for an expedited referral of the papers to a judge following the filing of the Acknowledgment of Service and any Reply.