CUD -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000690

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

5 November 2025

Before:

Dan Kolinsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
CUD

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY DAN KOLINSKY KC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4):-
    (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 CUD.
    (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) 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.
    Extension of Time for Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence
  2. Time is extended for the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review:
    (a) Permission is granted on grounds1, 2 and 5.
    (b) Permission is refused on grounds 3 and 4.
  4. Expedition
    The hearing of the claim is expedited. The hearing is to be listed no later than 27 February 2026.
  5. Case Management Directions:
    (a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
    (b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
    (c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
    (d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
    (e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
    (f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
    (g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
    (h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.
    (i) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

Observations and reasons

(1) I consider that it is appropriate to make an anonymity given that it raises matters of a sensitive personal nature for the Claimant and in respect of which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Defendant does not oppose this. I am satisfied that here are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) The Defendant’s application for an extension of time for acknowledging service is not opposed.
(3) I consider that grounds 1 and 2 are arguable. Ground 5 draws on these grounds and so should also have permission.
(4) I do not consider that ground 3 (adequacy of investigation) is arguable. This is essentially a rationality ground. The Claimant’s representatives had an opportunity to make representations. I do not consider that it is arguable that the Defendant acted unlawfully on Tameside grounds.
(5) I do not consider that ground 4 is arguable. This is a rationality challenge which does not offer an arguable basis for contending that the decision was unlawful. It is indicative of disagreement with the weighing of evidence; rather than any legal error.
(6) The Claimant had sought a rolled-up hearing by 31 July 2025.. Given the subject matter of the claim and the factors referred to by the Claimant in support of expedition (summarised in the reply at para 17), it is appropriate to set a time limit by which the substantive hearing should take place. I have directed that the hearing should take place by 27 February 2026.