FNB and another -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003342

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

21 January 2026

Before:

Tom Little KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
(1) FNB
(2) FNN

-v-

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Order

On an application by the Claimants for anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

ORDER BY TOM LITTLE KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    (i) the Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as FNB
    (iii) the Second Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as FNN
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 14 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    (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.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimants are an Indian Hindu and Muslim couple who claim asylum. That claim is based on a fear of persecution if they return to India. To expose their identity through these proceedings could exacerbate that risk, if it exists. There are accordingly good reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice contained in paragraph 1.