EF -v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

Appeal number: UA-2026-000200-CSM

In the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

On appeal from:
Tribunal Venue: Manchester
SC068/23/02356
Panel: Judge Oliver, Ms Cummins
Hearing Date: 19/5/2025

15 June 2026

Before:

Mark West,
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Between:

EF
(Appellant)

-v-

(1) The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(2) BC
(3) DC
(Respondents)

Anonymity order

Notice: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment which may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

  1. It is ordered under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the Appellant or the Second and Third Respondents in these proceedings or any other information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the Appellant or the Second and Third Respondents.
  2. It is ordered that the Appellant shall be known as EF and the Second and Third Respondents as BC and DC respectively.
  3. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal within 7 days of its issue for it to be varied or set aside.
  4. A copy of the order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

REASONS

  1. This application is made of the Upper Tribunal’s own motion.
  2. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases.
  3. Although none of the parties has sought an anonymity order, in this case I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle in the interests of justice and in order to protect the children in this case, who are minors.
  4. The appropriate balance in this case is for an anonymity order to be made in the above terms because the documents in the case include sensitive personal information about the minor children and I am satisfied on the basis of the material before me that their interests would be significantly harmed by their identification.
  5. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision being published online.
  6. I have considered whether there is any less restrictive measure which would still adequately protect the interests of the Appellant and Second and Third Respondents, but am satisfied that there is not since it would or might lead to their identification and thus the identification of the minor children.
  7. The letters EF, BC and DC are not the initials of the name of the Appellant or the Second and Third Respondents.

Mark West
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Authorised for issue on 15 June 2026