CYS and others -v- Director of the Serious Fraud Office (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000399

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

20 August 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Chamberlain

Between:

CYS

CCT

CTL

CAU

-v-

Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Order

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

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

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 Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    ii. the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as (1)CYS; (2) CCT; (3) CTL; (4) CAU
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 Claimants;
    ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  3. 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 Claimants 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 Claimants 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.

Observations and reasons

(1) The main (and possibly the only) issues in this case are (i) the proper interpretation of “directly caused” in the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (“the Code”) and, applying that interpretation, (ii) whether, if an act of bribery led to the Claimants’ employer losing its mining licence leading to the Claimants losing their jobs, the consequences for the Claimants was “directly caused” by the act of bribery.
(2) There is no authority cited by either the Claimants or the Defendant which directly decides (i) in any context. Although the Summary Grounds of Defence make a number of strong points, the argument that the Claimants’ losses were directly caused by the alleged criminal conduct surmounts the low threshold of reasonable arguability. In any event, there an authoritative determination of the meaning and application of the Code would be in the public interest.
(3) I doubt whether grounds 2-4 add much to ground 1, but they will not add much to the length of the hearing and refusing permission on those grounds could add to the procedural complexity of the case.