November 18, 2025

DVC -v- Secretary of State for the Home Office (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004009

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 November 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield

Between:

The King
on the application of
DVC

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Office

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield:

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 “DVC”.

(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.

Injunction:

(a) Until the return date on the application for interim relief, or further order of the court:

(i) the Defendant shall continue to accommodate the Claimant and her family in her current accommodation, in accordance with s.95 IAA 1999; and
(ii) the Defendant shall not disperse the Claimant and her family to other accommodation.

(b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.

THIS IS BOTH A MANDATORY AND A 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. Directions for hearing of interim relief/directions application:

(a) There shall be a return date on the application for interim relief/directions, listed on 20 November 2025, time estimate 1 hour.

(b) The Claimant shall serve the Claim Form and application (together with all evidence filed in support of the application) as soon as reasonably practicable, if those documents have not been served by the time of this order.

(c) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for interim relief/directions by 12 noon on Tuesday 18 November 2025.

(d) The Claimant may file and serve a reply to that response by 12 noon on Wednesday 19 November.

REASONS

Anonymity:
I have made an order for anonymity in respect of the Claimant until the on notice return date. I bear in mind the importance of the principle of open justice, and the general rule that the names of the parties are included in orders of the court. However, there is some evidence, on behalf of the Claimant, that the Claimant and her family would be at risk if identified due to their status as asylum seekers, both in this country and in their country of origin. I further bear in mind that these proceedings concern and affect a minor, the Claimant’s son. I have had regard to the matters raised in the Statement of Grounds at paragraphs 75-78. I am satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to make the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1, on a time limited basis until an on notice hearing when the matter can be considered further.

Injunction:
At this stage I have only the Claimant’s account of matters, and no response from the Defendant. It appears that the Defendant was written to by the Claimant’s solicitors with a letter before action on 10 November 2025.

I am satisfied that the matter is urgent, given that the Claimant believes that dispersal is due to take place today. I have some reservations as to whether an application to challenge the principal of dispersal could have been made at an earlier time ahead of today. However, the Claimant’s evidence is that she was given the dispersal date on 7 November. Taking that at face value for the purposes of today’s application, I accept that the Claimant has acted promptly to obtain legal advice, legal aid and to bring this claim once the date was made known to her. I note that the Claimant appears to have had no formal notification of dispersal, beyond being told about it on 7 November and given a post it note with the date and new address.

Having considered the Statement of Grounds, I am satisfied that they raise a serious issue to be tried and, for the purposes of the mandatory component of the injunction, a strong prima facie case that the Defendant has failed to take into consideration, or to reach a decision on, the various health issues put forward on behalf of the Claimant and, in particular her son. I have not seen the Defendant’s response, but at this stage on the material before me, the first stage of the American Cyanamid test is satisfied.

Damages would plainly not be an adequate remedy for either party. The balance of convenience favours the grant of a short injunction to maintain the status quo until the interim application can be heard on notice, with the benefit of representations from the Defendant. On the information before me:
(a) Dispersal to Scotland is likely to cause considerable disruption to the Claimant’s family, at least in the short term. If I refuse an injunction but the claim succeeds it is possible for the Claimant’s family to be returned to accommodation in London, but not without upheaval to accommodation and interference with schooling and the medical care that is currently in place.

(b) A dispersal decision appears to have been taken some months ago. At this stage I am aware of no urgent need for dispersal to take place this week. If the interim application fails, there is no reason why the planned move cannot take place shortly after the application is dismissed. While there may be some administrative inconvenience in a period of delay for the Defendant, that is, in my judgment, outweighed by the likely disruption to the Claimant’s family to which I refer in (a).

The Defendant is entitled to be heard, and a different picture may emerge. Accordingly, I make a short term injunction pending an on notice hearing of the application to be heard on 20 November.

Signed: Mr Justice Mansfield
Dated: 13 November 2025
Time 13.08