JRP -v- Manchester City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-MAN-000344

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 August 2025

Before:

Mr CMG Ockelton,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
JRP

-v-

Manchester City Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief and expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY Mr C M G Ockelton sitting as a judge of the High Court on the 07/08/2025

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and 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 JRP.
    (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.
    (e) This order will be reviewed (a) at the stage when a decision is made on whether permission should be granted; and (b) after final determination of the claim.
  2. Other relief:
    The claimant’s application for abridgment of time for the defendant’s acknowledgment of service is refused.
  3. Further process:
    The application for permission is to be put before a single judge for determination on the papers as soon as practicable after the earlier of the following: (i) expiry of the time limited for the defendant’s acknowledgment of service, (ii) the date when the defendant’s acknowledgment of service is filed.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity:
The claim relies on personal medical information in which the claimant, a recognised refugee, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Other relief:
The claimant’s circumstances as outlines in the claim are bound to excite sympathy, but the truth of the matter is that apart from a couple of recent incidents there is little evidenced change in the claimant’s circumstances and needs since 2023. It would not be right to require the defendant now to work to the claimant’s suddenly-assumed demand for urgency. However, the Court should not be responsible for any further delay at this stage, hence paragraph 3 of the Order above.

Signed: CMG Ockelton