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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003300

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 January 2026

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson

Between:

The King
on the application of
DMF
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence
(Defendant)

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 Mr Justice Johnson

Anonymity

  1. The claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as DMF (“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.

Permission to apply for judicial review

6. Permission is granted on all grounds.

Expedition

  1. The application for expedition is refused.

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.

    OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

    Anonymity
    (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.

    Permission to claim judicial review
    (2) The claim is arguable.

    Expedition
    (3) The matters that give rise to this claim now date back many months. The claimant has, so far, managed to remain in hiding and there is no evidence that he will not be able to continue to do so between now and the substantive hearing. I recognise and accept that that places severe limitations on the claimant and his family, and that the potential risks are extremely serious. However, there are many other similar cases before the court, and I do not consider that there is any particular feature of the present case that justifies prioritising it above other cases.

    Signed: Mr Justice Johnson

    Date: 5 January 2026