DFL -v- General Dental Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001250

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

26 November 2025

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Kimblin

Between:

The King on the application of
DFL

-v-

General Dental Council

Order

UPON hearing the Appellant in person and Mr Bradly KC on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN

  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;
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as DFL.
    (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.
  2. Costs: There shall be no order as to costs in respect of the making of this Order.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Appellant’s is transexual. She has family in Turkey who have connections in the UK. She is concerned that if her gender identification and transsexuality were known to others then she would be at some risk.
(2) The hearing before the PCC was conducted in private and its determination was redacted to maintain privacy.
(3) I raised this issue at the outset of the hearing. The parties, and each of them, were jointly of the view that the appropriate course was to order anonymity. No application for a private hearing was sought.
(4) I do consider that there is good reason to anonymise these proceedings having regard to the Appellant’s concerns which in my judgment are proportionate and reasonable. The interference with the transparency and openness of the resolution of the issues in this case is not affected to such a degree as would outweigh the evident need to address the Appellant’s concerns.
(5) I have made an order accordingly.
(6) No costs were incurred by the making of this order and so none are ordered.