HFS -v- His Majesty’s Passport Office (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001045

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

5 March 2026

BEFORE:

THE HON. MRS JUSTICE ARBUTHNOT DBE

BETWEEN:

HFS

-v-

His Majesty’s Passport Office

and

HSG (Interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, directions and the following interim relief:

“A mandatory order requiring the Defendant to reinstate valid passports within 48 hours A declaration that the decision is unlawful

Costs

An order to allow photographs to be provided by the Claimant by electronic means to avoid delay

A mandatory order directing the Defendant to add a permanent caveat on both passports: “no cancellation or suspension without written notice to Philip Thomas and a court order”.

An injunction requiring the Defendant to notify the claimants immediately of any report/application to cancel passports and not act without seven days’ notice and opportunity to be heard.

An order requesting the Dubai authorities to lift a travel ban for humanitarian evacuation.

Ex parte relief with delayed service on the mother and her legal representative until the Claimant and child have reached a safe country.”

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE ARBUTHNOT DBE

    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 HFS. The Claimant’s and Interested Party’s child is to be referred to orally and in writing as HAP and the Interested Party is to be referred to orally and in writing as HSG.
      (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 the Claimant’s and Interested Party’s child or of the Interested Party or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, the Claimant and Interested Party’s child or of the Interested Party in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    1. The application for permission to apply out of time is refused.
    2. The application for interim relief is refused. The application is totally without merit.
    3. The application and this decision is to be served on the Interested Party.

    Reasons

    1. Anonymity: The Claimant, the Claimant and Interested Party’s child and the Interested Party are parties in a long standing child abduction case which is before the Family Division of the High Court. The naming of these parties would not be in the best interests of the child nor would it assist the return of the child to this jurisdiction. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
    2. Permission to apply out of time: The Claimant gives no valid reason for making this application out of time. In his claim form, the Claimant says the claim arises from a decision made by the Defendant on 3 September 2025. The claim was filed on 3rd March 2026. The Claimant asks for an extension of time under CPR 3.1(2)(a). He says in section 9 of the claim form that the extension is required “due to trauma from missile attacks and seven years of abuse/sanctions”. The missile attacks on Iran started on Saturday 28th February 2026. They were not preventing the Claimant from making his claim within the three month deadline (CPR 54.5(1)). There is no evidence that the Claimant suffered from seven years’ of abuse. He abducted the parties’ child on or about 1st September 2023 and has refused to return her to the United Kingdom despite about 12 orders that he do so made in the Family Division of the High Court. The next hearing of the proceedings in the Family Division of the High Court will be at 10am on Friday 13 March 2026. The Sharia court in Dubai has imposed a travel ban on the child of the parties which prevents the removal of the child from that jurisdiction.
    3. The application for interim relief is refused: The application is totally without merit. The application is for valid passports to be provided by the Defendant to the Claimant and the child and for various ancillary orders. The order is unnecessary because the Claimant and Child can obtain Emergency Travel Documents which would allow them to return to the United Kingdom. There is no need for valid passports in the circumstances. The application is bound to fail.
    4. The service of the application and order: the Interested Party should be served with the claim form, the attached documents and this order as they are relevant to the proceedings continuing in the Family Division of the High Court and to any other proceedings that may be in train.