Jaiyeola and others -v- HM Treasury and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002907

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

11 September 2025

Before:

Mr CMG Ockelton
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
Omotayo Abigail Jaiyeola and others

-v-

(1) His Majesty’s Treasury
(2) Secretary of State for Education

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, expedition and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY Mr C M G Ockelton sitting as a judge of the High Court

  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 children’s names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant’s children or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of them 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’s children;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant’s children 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. Expedition and interim relief
    (a) The application for interim relief is refused.
    (b) The application for permission is to be put before a judge for determination on the papers promptly after the expiry of the time limited by the rules for the defendant’s acknowledgment of service.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim gains nothing noticeable by including the claimant’s children as claimants, but they are entitled to anonymity. The claimant is not: there is no real risk of ‘jigsaw identification’ and even the claimant’s own actual circumstances are unlikely to play much of a role in this claim.
(2) Expedition and interim relief: In my judgment this is not an appropriate case for an order for expedition. Although the claimant and her legal team seek to offer the date of the defendant’s response to pre-action correspondence as the material decision in this claim of a continuing illegality, the truth is that the claimant’s predictable position has been the same for about a year, during the majority of which time she has not sought to challenge the regime that would bring about the result now complained of. Even after the date identified in the claim form, the claimant waited another month before bringing proceedings. The balance of convenience does not favour interim relief when the claimant’s own actions make it clear that it is not necessary.

Signed: CMG Ockelton

Date: 11 September 2025