HLM -v- The London Borough of Haringey (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002090

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

24 April 2026

Before:

Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC
Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
HLM

-v-

The London Borough of Haringey

Order

Upon an application by the Claimant for an Order for Anonymity

And Upon

(1) The Court being satisfied that the publication of details leading to the identification of the Claimant in connection with these proceedings would constitute an interference with the Claimant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

(2) The Court being satisfied that the balance the Claimant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR and the principle of open justice, and rights of the press and public under Article 10 ECHR falls in favour of anonymisation

(3) The Court being satisfied, accordingly, that the Claimant should be granted anonymity under CPR r.39.2(4)

ORDER BY MARCUS PILGERSTORFER KC, 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 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 HLM.

(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. Any application for permission must be made on notice to the parties.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

REASONS

(1) The Claimant seeks an order for anonymity. A proposed order is contained in a consent order agreed with the Defendant. The question of anonymity is, however, a matter for the court to determine; the fact the parties consent is not determinative.

(2) Whilst there is a strong public interest in open justice and protecting the rights contained in Article 10 ECHR, I am satisfied that it is necessary to make an anonymity order in this case. Compelling reasons are identified by the claimant which justify the limited derogations from the principle of open justice as set out in my order. Those compelling reasons include that the Claimant is a victim of trafficking and sexual offences committed in the context of that trafficking. She has a right to anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 in relation to the sexual offences committed against her. She also suffers from various mental health difficulties and has a right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR in relation thereto. There is also a risk of harm in terms of exacerbation of her mental health were anonymity not granted. Further, the Claimant was previously granted anonymity in respect of an earlier claim which is referred to in these proceedings and there is a risk that could be undermined were anonymity now not granted. For these, and the other reasons identified in §§64-74 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds, I grant an order for anonymity.

Signed: Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, DHCJ

Date: 24 April 2026