JN -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

UT ref: UA-2026-000072-PIP

In the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

From the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Cardiff
Case numbers: 1709-1367-3269-4637
Decision date: 4 June 2025

24 June 2026

Before:

Stewart Wright,
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Between:

JN
(Appellant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Respondent)

Anonymity order

NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

ORDER

  1. It is ordered, under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant.
  2. The appellant shall be known as JN.
  3. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside.
  4. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

REASONS

  1. This anonymity order is made on the application of the appellant. It is sought on the basis that given her mental health problems, putting her name and her mental health problems in the public domain would cause her considerable anxiety.
  2. I have by a separate decision made today allowed the appellant’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 4 June 2025. That decision on the appeal will be published on public facing websites and, if no anonymity order is made, the appellant would be named in that decision.
  3. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases.
  4. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle to the limited extent of not naming the appellant.
  5. The legal issue on which the error of law appeal to the Upper Tribunal has succeeded has necessitated reference to some of the appellant’s intimate (mental) health details. In that context, I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made because I accept the risk of harm that would arise for the appellant if she was to be identified in these proceedings, because her name and her health details would then be in the public domain and that would exacerbate her mental health problems.
  6. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision in this case being published online.
  7. The letters JN have been chosen randomly and are not the appellant’s initials.

Authorised for issue by Stewart Wright,
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

On 24th June 2026