LAU -v- Croydon Family Court (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000253

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

26 May 2026

Before:

BENJAMIN DOUGLAS-JONES KC

Between:

THE KING
(on the application of LAU)

-v-

Croydon Family Court

and

(1) LWH
(2) NATIONAL YOUTH ADVOCACY SERVICES (NYAS)
(3) SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
(Interested Parties)

Order

Of the Court’s own motion

Following the hearing of the Claimant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review on 21 April 2026;

Following judgment being delivered ex tempore on 21 April 2026;

And on approval of the transcript of the judgment for publication

ORDER BY BENJAMIN DOUGLAS-JONES KC,
SITTING AS A DEPUTY 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 name, the name of the First Interested Party and the name of their child, the subject of section 8 Children Act 1989 proceedings in the Croydon Family Court (“the child”), are 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 LAU, the First Interested Party is to be referred to as LWH and the child is to be referred to as LAY.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant, the First Interested Party and/or the child or of any matter likely to lead to their identification 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, the First Interested Party and/or the child;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, the First Interested Party and/or the child, 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 may 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.

Reasons

Anonymity: The Claimant and First Interested Party are the father and mother respectively of a child. This claim concerns an application for permission to claim a judicial review of the Family Court’s alleged inertia in respect of the private law Children Act 1989 proceedings concerning the child. On the basis that I understand that the identity of the child will not be published in those proceedings, I have deemed it appropriate to make an anonymity order even though no application has been made. This order is made at this stage – before the judgment is uploaded to the National Archives. I note that no anonymity order has been made by judges who have previously considered aspects of this claim nor was an anonymity order made in two related claims. However, in my judgment there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Order

UPON hearing the claimant in person and the defendant not being represented at the hearing of the claimant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review on 21 April 2026;

AND UPON judgment being delivered ex tempore on 21 April 2026

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The claimant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is dismissed and is certified as being totally without merit.