FED -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

UT ref: UA-2024-001312-PIP

In the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

30 April 2026

Appellant: FED

Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC068/23/02270

Tribunal venue: Liverpool

Tribunal decision date: 10 May 2024

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 that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

ORDER

  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 in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant.
  2. It is ordered that the appellant shall be known as FED.
  3. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside.
  4. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

REASONS

  1. This anonymity order is made of the judge’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. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle in the interests of justice.
  4. The appropriate balance in this case is for an anonymity order to be made in the above terms. This is because evidence and information in the case includes personal or sensitive medical information about the appellant. I am satisfied on the basis of the material before me that their interests would be significantly harmed if anonymity were not granted.
  5. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by the final decision in this case being published online with the appellant’s name anonymised.
  6. I have considered whether there is any less restrictive measure that would still adequately protect the identified interests, but I am satisfied there is not, because they might interfere with how the reasoning in the decision is expressed. Anonymising the identity of the appellant does not interfere with how the reasoning is expressed.
  7. The letters ‘FED’ have been chosen randomly and do not relate to the appellant’s name.

Judith Butler
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Authorised for issue: 30 April 2026