HEC -v- London Borough of Croydon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001172

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

12 March 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HEC

-v-

LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
(Ref: REVIEWS/52009)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, directions and interim relief;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “HEC”.
  2. Pursuant to section 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.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    b. 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. The Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, including a response to the application for interim relief, and any documents that the Defendant wishes to rely upon, must be filed and served no more than 7 days after the date of service of the claim form and supporting documents.
  5. A Reply from the Claimant must be filed and served no more than 5 days after service of documents by the Defendant pursuant to paragraph 4 above.
  6. The papers are to be referred to a Judge for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review and interim relief as soon as possible after the filing of the Claimant’s Reply, and in any event, no later than 31 March 2026.
  7. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  8. Costs reserved.

Reasons

    1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
    1. The Claimant, who is an Egyptian national, has a lengthy immigration history. On 25 July 2025, the Single Competent Authority found that there were positive conclusive grounds that the Claimant was a victim of modern slavery in Egypt. He has been granted short term discretionary leave to remain until June 2026, with the possibility of an extension. The Claimant has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. He has suicidal ideation and has made suicide attempts. He is homeless.
    2. The Claimant made a homelessness application to the Defendant on 17 December 2025. He had to leave his asylum accommodation on 11 February 2026. The Defendant offered him accommodation in Birmingham which he refused because of his ties in the local area.
    3. The Claimant now seeks to challenge the Defendant’s decision, dated 27 February 2026, to refuse his request for interim accommodation under section 188(1) Housing Act 1996 (“HA 1996”), pending a review of a decision dated 20 February 2026 finding that he was not in priority need, and therefore not owed a duty to be accommodated under section 193 HA 1996.
    4. The Claimant’s detailed grounds of challenge contend that the Defendant has applied the wrong legal tests, failed to make appropriate enquiries, failed to have regard to relevant and material information, and failed to comply with the public sector equality duty.
    5. In the light of the competing positions of the parties, it would be procedurally unfair and contrary to the interests of justice for interim relief to be granted without first giving the Defendant an opportunity to make representations.