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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001739

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 January 2026

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson

Between:

The King
on the application of
DEE

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the parties

ORDER BY Mr Justice Johnson

Anonymity

  1. The claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as DEE (“the cipher”).
  2. The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
  3. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
  4. Pursuant to s.11 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.
  5. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant.
(b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.

Extension of time

  1. The claimant is granted an extension of time so that his claim form is to be treated as
    being filed within time.

Permission to amend / rely on second witness statement

  1. The claimant is granted permission to amend his claim so as to rely on the additional
    ground of challenge dated 5 August 2025.
  2. The claimant is granted permission to rely on his second witness statement dated 29
    July 2025 and filed on 5 August 2025.

Permission to apply for judicial review

  1. Permission is granted on the new (amended) ground of claim, ground 4.
  2. Permission is refused on the original grounds of claim, grounds 1-3.

Case management directions

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. The Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to claim judicial review of grounds 1-3 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) Non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant, pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules.

(2) Given that the claimant was in hiding and there were real difficulties in instructing solicitors, and because, anyway, the claimant is challenging a subsequent decision (for which I will give permission), an extension of time for bringing the claim is justified.

(3) Grounds 1-3 are now historic and of only academic significance.

(4) The claimant has the right to apply for a review of the decision. However, the timescale that attach to the defendant’s decision making up until now, and the absence of any timescale for a review decision, are such that it is arguable that the availability of a review does not amount to an adequate alternative remedy. Moreover, I consider that the context of this case, the risks to which the claimant is potentially exposed, and the delays, are all such that this is an exceptional case where a rolling application for judicial review can properly be entertained, rather than dismissing the present claim and requiring the claimant to issue a new claim.

(5) Ground 4 has arguable merit.

Signed: Mr Justice Johnson

Date: 9 January 2026