January 14, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003389

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
DFI

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties

ORDER BY Mr Justice Johnson

Anonymity:

The claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as DFI (“the
cipher”).
The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
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.
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.
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.

Permission to claim judicial review

Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

Costs

The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £3,306.60.

Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 7 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 7 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 7 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 7 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is
served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 7 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a
hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 7 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is
served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the
permission hearing.

8. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

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) For the purposes of considering permission, I have taken account of the late Reply, de bene esse.

(3) Ground 1: The obligation to respond to the pre-action letter of claim is governed by the pre-action protocol rather than public law norms. I do not consider that it is susceptible to judicial review but, anyway, it has been overtaken by the substantive claim and response.

(4) Ground 2: The request for the review was made on 11 May 2025. This claim was issued on 24 September 2025. The delay of 4½ months is not arguably unlawful. The defendant is having to address the appropriate policy response in the light of the Rimmer Report. Given the very difficult issues that arise, that inevitably takes time.

(5) Insofar as ground 2 concerns the data leak, the claimant has an adequate alternative remedy by way of a private law action under data protection and/or human rights legislation.

Signed Mr Justice Johnson

Date

9 January 2026