GFD -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000673

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

13 February 2026

Before:

THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GFD

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On a Form N463 application by the Claimant for (a) anonymity and (b) permission stage abridgment and expedition.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  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 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 GFD.
    (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.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 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 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;
    (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.
  2. Abridgement of time and expedition: The application is refused.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and I have made the order on a protective and precautionary basis. If the case proceeds, the basis of anonymity (currently two lines at p.53 para 93) should be spelled out, so that it can be reviewed by the Court. For now, I am satisfied that there is reason to consider that naming the Claimant and/or members of her family could increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. That is sufficient, for now, as a compelling reason for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Abridgement of time/expedition: The usual rules as to the Acknowledgment of Service should apply. The N463 seeks a decision within 3 days (by say 16.2.26) and then an order abridging time for the AOS to 7 days (by say 23.2.26). The usual timetable would allow 21 days from date of service of the claim. The letters before claim started on 39.9.25. The Claimant has a viable legal argument that the urgency for a move out of the unsuitable current accommodation – recognised by the Home Office on 27.1.26 – now needs a concrete time-frame of implementation. The usual AOS deadline of 23.2.26 will allow a substantive response which addresses this argument, and may potentially resolve it. I have noted that the Form N463 was envisaging a substantive hearing by 31.3.26, if permission were granted. The AOS should address the viability of the claim, and also the question of appropriate directions. There is no reason to expect significant delay post-AOS, and the Claimant’s solicitors can at that stage write to the ACO and point to what I have said here, if delay becomes a concern.
  3. Location: The added feature of this case is the argument that the family has a legal right not only to the move from the unsuitable current accommodation, but also to remain in the Portsmouth area. That requirement has been bundled-up into the claim. I understand why. There are educational and health points, and the best interests of 3 children aged 16 and under. But this part of the claim does seem, provisionally, to be far more ambitious. It may also inhibit a prompt solution. I am aware that a Swindon option was declined in March 2025, when there were said to be specific GCSE exam concerns. The claimant’s representatives will need to keep under review whether this locational legal right is being maintained.