CRV -v- Financial Conduct Authority (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002463

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

15 October 2025

Before:

Jonathan Moffett KC

Between:

The King on the application of
CRV

-v-

Financial Conduct Authority

Order

On an application by the Claimant for a stay of the claim and for an order providing for it to be anonymised, and on an application by the Defendant for an extension of time for filing and service of its acknowledgment of service

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

ORDER BY JONATHAN MOFFETT KC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  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 name is to 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 CRV.
    (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) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) by 4 pm on 8 December 2025, the claimant must file a redacted copy of the claim form and statement of facts and grounds, 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. The claim is stayed until the end of 30 November 2025.
  3. Time for the Defendant to file and serve its acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of resistance is extended until 22 December 2025.
  4. No order as to costs

Reasons

(1) The Claimant seeks to challenge a decision of the Defendant, taken on 22 April 2025, to appoint investigators to commence an investigation into the Claimant’s conduct, pursuant to s 168 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
(2) When the claim was filed, the Claimant applied for anonymity and a stay of proceedings until 22 September 2025, an application which was agreed by the Defendant, and requested that the application be dealt with before the deadline for the Defendant to file its acknowledgment of service, which was 21 August 2025.
(3) The stay was requested on the basis that the parties wished to have further time to discuss whether it might be possible to resolve the dispute between them without the intervention of the Court. In broad terms, anonymity was requested on the basis that the investigation is “covert and confidential”, a previous investigation and the terms on which it was concluded (which are material to the present claim) were also confidential, and if these matters were to enter the public domain, they would cause irreparable reputational damage to the Claimant and former and current employees of the Claimant.
(4) The application was not dealt with prior to 21 August 2025, and therefore on that date, the Defendant applied for an order extending time for filing its acknowledgment of service until either 21 days after any stay expired or, if a stay were not granted, until 7 days after the order refusing the stay. The Claimant consented to the application.
(5) On 12 September 2025, the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Court, indicating that the parties remained in agreement that: (a) the claim should be stayed (now until 30 November 2025), (b) the Defendant should be granted an extension of time for filing its acknowledgment of service, and (c) the Claimant should be granted anonymity. The Claimant’s solicitors provided an amended draft order, which in its recitals recorded that its various terms had been agreed between the parties on the following bases:

“[The parties agree] that nothing in this Order shall restrict the Defendant from: making a public announcement in connection with the investigation into the Claimant commenced by memorandum of appointment dated 22 April 2025 (“Investigation”) pursuant to Chapter 4 of its Enforcement Guide; disclosing any matter relating to the Investigation in response to a question asked by a committee of Parliament; or disclosing any matter relating to the Investigation in the course of investigating or otherwise making enquiries in connection with the circumstances that gave rise to the Investigation, provided that the Defendant does not identify the Claimant as the claimant in these proceedings”
“[The Defendant acknowledges] that the Claimant is not, by virtue of this Order, implicitly or otherwise accepting the lawfulness of any announcement pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Enforcement Guide or indeed any of the actions set out above, nor is it waiving its right to challenge any such announcement or acts”


(6) I consider that it is in accordance with the overriding objective to grant the stay sought. It is in the parties’ and the Court’s interests that, if the parties are able to resolve this matter without further recourse to the Court, they should do so, and in my view the additional time sought constitutes a reasonable period in which to explore such a resolution.
(7) For similar reasons, I consider that it is in accordance with the overriding objective to extend time for filing and service of the Defendant’s acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of resistance until 21 days after the stay has expired.
(8) The application for an anonymity order in respect of the Claimant would constitute a departure from the important principle of open justice. However, at least initially, the order would apply during a period when the claim is stayed and, if the claim were to proceed, it would need to be reconsidered at the permission stage. Accordingly, I consider that for the time being the departure would be relatively limited in nature. I have read the witness statement filed on behalf of the Claimant, and for the reasons set out therein (which are summarised above), I accept that there are compelling reasons for the derogation from the principle of open justice provided for by paragraph 1 of this order. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I do not consider that the fact that particular documents might be sensitive would justify an anonymity order; if that were the only concern, there would be other mechanisms available for protecting the confidentiality of those documents.
(9) Accordingly, I have made a withholding order, a reporting restrictions order, and an order under CPR 5.4C, which reflect the standard terms suggested by the Administrative Court Guide.