HBY and HPL -v- London Borough of Hackney (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002132

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

6 March 2026

Before:

Matthew Butt KC

Between:

THE KING
on the application of
HBY

HPL

-v-

London Borough of Hackney

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and Defendant

ORDER by Matthew Butt KC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
.

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction
    a. the names of the Claimants HBY and HPL and their son HZZ must not be disclosed in these proceedings
    b. The Claimants and their son are to be referred to orally and in writing by the ciphers set out at (a) above.
    c. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identities of the Claimants or their son or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of those persons in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    The Claimant 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 Claimants or their son;
    If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or their son a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; and
    d. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case or evidence filed in the case.
  2. The Defendant must forthwith file and serve its skeleton argument accompanied by an application for relief from sanctions.

      Reasons

      1. I am doubtful whether this is a proper use of an urgent application before this court. I do not understand why the Claimants have not applied for anonymity earlier. The Administrative Court Guide which can be found here makes clear that careful consideration must be given to the issue of anonymity at the earliest opportunity see 7.12.4. It seems an urgent application has been made to remedy the failure to make this application earlier. This should not happen.
      2. The application is made more difficult by the fact that as it has been made so late. There have been hearings in open court in which both Claimants have been named. Normally this would be a complete bar to anonymity.
      3. I note however that the Claimant’s are litigants in person and the intensely private medical information at the heart of this claim. I note in particular the private information about HZZ. I am prepared to make an anonymity order to protect the Article 8 rights of HZZ. I agree that if HBY and HPL were named then it would lead to identification of HZZ. I do not consider that it would be right for publicly available documents to describe HZZ’s medical conditions in a manner that would lead to her identification. Insofar as I can see there are no such documents in the public domain or on legal databases to date. I consider that the Article 8 rights of HZZ outweigh the limited interference with the open justice principle in this case.
      4. I do not find the Claimant’s argument about landlords refusing the family in the future to be persuasive. That would amount to an act of unlawful discrimination. I have made my decision based solely upon HZZ’s Article 8 rights.
      5. The Claimants must note that it is for them to serve redacted statements of case if they want to have full protection under this order.
      6. I do not understand why the Defendant has not served and filed its skeleton argument. The application was allocated to me on 06 March 2026 and thus after the proposed deadline for the unless order had passed.
      7. I do not make the unless order requested. As matters stand the Defendant appears to be in breach of a court order. It will be for the Defendant to apply for relief from sanctions (permission to serve out of time) when its skeleton is served. This must be done forthwith. As this is a public law case I do not consider that strike out would be appropriate. Equally the Defendant has a duty to assist the court which is it in breach of to date. The Defendant should expect costs and potentially other consequences to be considered by the court. The sooner this is remedied the better.