LBT -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000846

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

22 July 2026

Before:

David Pittaway KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
LBT

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

UPON the Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review sealed 23 February 2026 challenging the Defendant’s Public Order Disqualification Decision dated 7 November 2025 and insofar as applicable: the Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland;

AND UPON the judgment in R (ABW) v SSHD [2025] EWHC 3280 (Admin) (“ABW”) being handed down by Morris J on 17 December 2025 and the final Order issued on 6 February 2026;

AND UPON the Defendant having applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal ABW on 27 February 2026 and for expedition (if permission is granted);

AND UPON this application for permission to apply for judicial review raising similar issues to, and therefore it ought to be stayed behind, the outcome of the appeal proceedings in ABW;

AND UPON consideration of the Defendant’s stay application of 20 March 2026.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Anonymity:

  1. 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 and the names of the Interested Parties shall 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 LBT.
  2. 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 his identification as a party to these proceedings in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (iii) 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;
    (iv) 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;
    (v) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order must make an application, served on each part
    Stay:
  5. The claim be stayed until either:
    i. permission is granted by the Court of Appeal and the appeal is finally determined by the Court of Appeal; or
    ii. permission is refused by the Court of Appeal.
    b. Within 21 days of the stay expiring in accordance with paragraph 1 above, the parties shall file and serve written submissions on future case management or make a further application for a stay, if so advised.
    c. The time for the filing and service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence is extended to 21 days after the date on which the parties’ written submissions under paragraph 2 are due or such other date as the Court may direct upon consideration of those submissions.
    d. There be liberty to apply on 72 hours’ notice for directions to lift or vary the stay.
    2. If the Defendant’s application for a stay is refused, the time for filing and service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence is extended to 21 days after the date on which the Court’s decision with respect to the stay application is served on the parties.
    Costs:
  6. Costs in the case.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant alleges that he is the victim of an offence of trafficking under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In my view, the facts and circumstances of this case are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Stay: For the reasons set out in the Defendant’s letter of 26 April 2026, I consider that it is appropriate to stay this claim until the determination of the appeal in R (ABW) v SSHD [2025] EWHC 3280 (Admin). The outcome of that appeal is likely to be highly relevant to this case. Like stay applications have been made, and granted, in other cases raising identical or analogous grounds. The stay is not opposed by the Claimant, however, the Claimant submits that I should grant permission first, then stay the claim. I prefer the Defendant’s approach, which is to grant the stay and, if necessary, the application for permission can be considered in due course. I observe that the Defendant’s position regarding MSVCC support is set out in the Defendant’s letter referred to above.