November 12, 2025

DLG -v- London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003900

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

6 November 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Lieven

Between:

The King
on the application of
DLG

-v-

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice Lieven:

(1) Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “DLG”.

(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.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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.

Mandatory/Prohibitory injunction:

(a) The Defendant must not share information about the Claimant’s convictions with the children’s school until further order.

(b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party. If the Defendant considers that the order at 2(a) poses a significant risk to the safeguarding of the children then they should apply to discharge or vary the order.

THIS IS A [MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY] INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4

3. Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:

(a) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for relief by 4pm on 13 November 2025.

(b) The Claimant may file and serve a reply to that response by 4pm 16 November 2025.

REASONS

Anonymity: . There are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

I have made an order for anonymity because if the Claimant is named then it is possible that the very information he does not wish to be revealed to the school is revealed.
If these proceedings continue it may be that anonymity is found not to be justified, but out of an abundance of caution I have made the order at this stage.

Abridgement of time/expedition [OR Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief]:

The Claimant seeks to restrain the Defendant from sharing information about his criminal convictions with the children’s school. He argues that to share the information would be in breach of data protection law.
I have made the order simply on the basis of the balance of convenience, until the Court can be fully appraised of the facts. If the Defendant believes that there is an immediate risk to the children which justifies discharging the order, then it should apply back to the Court.

Signed: Mrs Justice Lieven
Dated: 06/11/2025