HTY and HTN -v- Competition and Markets Authority (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001128

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

11 March 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
(1) HTY
(2) HTN

-v-

COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY

Order

On the Claimants’ application for an anonymity order and urgent consideration;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants;

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 names of the Claimants are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “HTY”.
    c. The Second Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “HTN”.
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants 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 Claimants;
    b. If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 7 days notice to the other parties.
  5. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimants have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality at this stage, and would be likely to suffer significant reputational damage if they were publicly identified. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.