EBA -v- Defence Secretary and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtAnonymity Order

AC-2025-LON-003332
AC-2025-LON-003343
AC-2025-LON-003344
AC-2025-LON-003345
AC-2025-LON-003346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (KBD)

2 March 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Saini

Between:

THE KING on the application of EBA

-v-

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
(2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

AND

THE KING on the application of
HRY, HRR, HAC, HGT

-v-

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Order

UPON the order of Swift J dated 7 January 2026 granting permission to apply for judicial review in Claim No. AC-2025-LON-003332 (“the EBA Claim” and “the EBA Order”)

AND UPON the substantive hearing in the EBA Claim being listed for 29-30 April 2026 (“the Hearing”)

AND UPON the application dated 5 February 2026 by the Defendant in Claim Nos. AC-2025-LON-003343, AC-2025-LON-003344, AC-2025-LON-003345, AC-2025-LON-00346 (“the Duncan Lewis Claims”) for Claim Nos. AC-2025-003343, AC-2025-LON-003345 and AC- 2025-LON-003346 to be stayed and for other directions in respect of Claim No. AC-2025 LON- 003344 (“the Defendant’s Application”)

AND UPON the application dated 12 February 2026 on behalf of the Claimant in AC-2025 LON-003343 seeking a rolled-up hearing of his claim with the EBA Claim

AND UPON reading the written submissions on behalf of the Claimants and the Defendant in the Duncan Lewis Claims

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT:

  1. The Defendant’s Application is dismissed.
  2. The Claimants shall have anonymity and will hereafter be referred to as HRY, HRR, HAC, HGT
  3. The Duncan Lewis Claims shall be heard on a “rolled-up” (permission and substantive) basis with the EBA Claim.
  4. The time estimate for the Hearing shall is modified to be 3 days.
  5. The Defendant shall serve Detailed Grounds and any written evidence by 4pm on 19 March 2026.
  6. The parties must agree the contents of a single hearing bundle in respect of the EBA Claim and the Duncan Lewis Claims. The bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with paragraph (d) of the directions in the EBA Order.
  7. The timetable for the filing and service of skeleton arguments set out at paragraphs (e)-(f) of the directions in the EBA Order shall also apply to the Duncan Lewis Claims.
  8. The parties must agree the contents of a single authorities bundle in respect of the EBA Claim and the Duncan Lewis Claims. The authorities bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with paragraph (g) of the directions in the EBA Order.
  9. Costs in the case.
  10. Permission to apply on paper to vary these directions.

Reasons

In my judgment, the overriding objective requires that these 5 cases be dealt with together. I do not accept the submission of the SSHD that the outcome of the EBA Claim may “resolve matters” in relation to the Duncan Lewis Claims. There is a clear overlap between the EBA Claim and the Duncan Lewis Claims but whatever the outcome in relation to the EBA Claim, it appears to me that on the pleadings there will remain a number of issues raised by the Duncan Lewis Claims which will not be resolved. I also consider it significant that the relief sought is not the same. I note in this regard that the Duncan Lewis Claims seek: (i) declaratory relief to the effect that the SSHD acted unlawfully by closing ARAP to new principal applications without giving at least 21 days’ notice and/or creating an exception for (in summary) persons affected by the Data Breach; and (ii) the quashing of the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules laid on 1 July 2025, insofar as it relates to Appendix ARAP (Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds, §65). By contrast, the EBA Claim seeks: (i) a declaration and quashing order in relation to a decision specific to EBA, made on 15 August 2025; and (ii) a declaration that the closure of the ARAP scheme without notice to EBA was unlawful (see EBA’s Statement of Facts and Grounds at §57 [54]). The relief sought by the EBA Claim is
therefore focused on EBA’s particular circumstances, whereas the relief sought in the Duncan Lewis Claims is wider. I also consider that the Duncan Lewis Claims raise issues of significant importance for the Claimants and other similarly-situated individuals. There is a substantial public interest in having such issues determined promptly rather than being moved to the “back burner” while the more individualised EBA Claim is resolved. I have directed that the 2 day current fixture for the EBA’s claims be extended to 3 days but my provisional view is that this is generous. Counsel for the parties on the Claimant side must liaise to ensure that there is no repetition of legal submissions in writing or orally. They must also agree a division of time with Counsel for the SSHD.