HWH and another -v- HM Passport Office (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000810

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

20 February 2026

Before:

The Hon. Ms Justice Obi

Between:

The King on the application of
HWH and HMT (by their litigation friend HME)

-v-

HM Passport Office

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission and urgent consideration

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. MS JUSTICE OBI

  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 Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as HWH and HMT and their litigation friend as HME.
    (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.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Mandatory injunction:
    (a) The Defendant must by 4pm on 24 February 2026 determine the Claimant’s passport applications (Refs: PEX 540 397 300X and PEX 540 369 8915) in accordance with the law and the evidence before the Defendant.
    (b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.
    THIS IS A [MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY] INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE
  3. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 25 February 2026.
    (b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 4pm on 27 February 2026.
    (c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge immediately thereafter.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: Anonymity is granted pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) because the Claimants are minor children and the proceedings involve sensitive medical and safeguarding information; publication of their identities would create a real risk of harm and would be contrary to their best interests, which must be treated as a primary consideration under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The limited derogation from open justice is therefore necessary and proportionate.
(2) Mandatory injunction: Interim mandatory relief is justified because the Claimants have already experienced a materialised risk of serious harm namely, acute respiratory distress and refusal of full treatment abroad due to lack of recognised national status. Further delay poses a continuing, immediate risk. The Defendant’s delay appears to rests on an error of law: under s.2(1)(a) BNA 1981, the Claimants’ British citizenship arises automatically where their mother is British otherwise than by descent, and the evidence provided appears to be conclusive on that point, rendering further investigation into the nationality of a deceased grandfather irrelevant under s.14(1). A requirement to determine the applications lawfully within a short period is the least intrusive effective measure to prevent ongoing breaches of Article 3 ECHR and the Defendant’s s.55 statutory duty.
(3) Abridgement of time/expedition: Abridgment of time is granted because the Claimants are medically vulnerable children who have already suffered a materialised risk of serious harm abroad and the ordinary CPR timetable would expose them to further avoidable risk. The issues in dispute are legally narrow and turn on a clear question of statutory construction under the BNA 1981 and the Defendant has already engaged extensively with the facts through the PAP process, such that an expedited AoS will not cause unfairness. Given the immediacy of the safeguarding concerns and the Defendant’s prior detailed knowledge of the case, and abridged timetable is necessary, proportionate and required to ensure that the legality of the ongoing delay can be addressed without compromising the children’s welfare.