May 15, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC 2026 LON 000726

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield

Between:

The King
on the application of
LBZ
(by the Official Solicitor as their Litigation Friend)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE MANSFIELD

Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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

Iii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “LBZ”.

(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.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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.

Extension of Time:
(a) The time for filing and service of the Statement of Facts and Grounds is extended to 25 March 2026
(b) The time for filing Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence is extended to 24 April 2026.

Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £732.
Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 4 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 4 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 4 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 4 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a
hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 4 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is
served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the
permission hearing.

6. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1 hour, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity. The Claimant alleges that he has been a victim of trafficking. He is in any event vulnerable and unable to conduct litigation without a litigation friend. An anonymity order is appropriate and necessary to protect the position pending any renewal application. If a renewal application is made, continuation of anonymity restrictions can be considered further.

(2) Extension of time/directions. The parties have made various applications for extensions of time for procedural steps and/or for stays of the proceedings, largely as a result of the need to obtain a litigation friend for the Claimant. By the time the applications were put before me, the parties have complied with the necessary steps: SFG was filed on 25 March 2026 ad AOS on 24 April 2026. No stay is necessary. I retrospectively extend time for filing the SFG and AOS to the date on which they were in fact filed.

(3) Permission. I refuse permission to bring a claim for judicial review. There is no arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.

(a) Ground 1. The relevant form of exploitation in this case was exploitation by way of forced labour. Other forms of exploitation did not arise from the account give by the Claimant. It is wholly unclear in what way the MSSG is said to adopt too narrow a definition of exploitation or exploitation for the purposes of forced labour. In any event, based on the Claimant’s own account, the Defendant made findings which it was entitled to conclude, taken as a whole did not amount to exploitation for the purpose of forced labour.

(b) Ground 2. The Defendant considered the facts (based on the Claimant’s account) and reached conclusions it was entitled to reach. The allegation that the Defendant misapplied the MSSG and/or failed to have regard to material considerations is no more than a disagreement with the conclusions the Defendant reached.

(c) Ground 3. It is not arguable that the defendant erred in making a decision on the information before her without seeking further information. On the information provided by the Claimant, taken at face value, the Defendant was entitled to reach the decision reached.

(d) Ground 4. I do not believe the article 4 ECHR ground adds anything to the claim. The Claimant argues that there was a breach of a positive obligation to identify the Claimant as a victim of trafficking. The Defendant’s decision was that the Claimant was not a victim of trafficking. Ground 4 does not identify any specific error in that decision. Insofar as the Claimant argues that the decision making process was flawed, those flaws are addressed in Grounds 1-3.

Signed: Mr Justice Mansfield

Date: 12 May 2026