LG and KG -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001496

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

13 June 2024


The Honourable Mr Justice Mould


(1) LG
(2) KG


Secretary of State for the Home Department


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Mould

1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4) the Claimants’ identities are not to be disclosed.

2. In any publication or broadcast relating to these proceedings, the Claimants shall be known respectively by the letters ‘LG’ and ‘KG’. There shall be no publication in any newspaper or other media or other disclosure of any name, address, image or other information tending to identify the Claimants in relation to their involvement in these proceedings.

3. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if a statement of case, judgment or court order has been anonymized such that:
i. The Claimants are referred to in those documents as LG and KG;
ii. The address of the Claimants has been deleted from those documents;
iii. For the purpose of this claim, including any statement of case, judgment, order or other document, the Claimants shall be known respectively by the letters LG and KG.

4. In so far as any statement of case, judgment, order or other document to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A – D does not comply with paragraph 3 above, the Claimants’ solicitors have permission to file with the court copies of any such document adjusted so that it does comply. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant original; and the originals are then to be retained by the court in a sealed envelope marked “not to be opened without the permission of a judge or master of the King’s Bench Division”.

5. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this order, providing that any such application is made on notice to the Claimants’ solicitors and that 7 working days’ prior notice of the intention to make such an application is given. The Court will affect service of the application.

6. A copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice specifying that the Claimants shall be referred to respectively as ‘LG’ and ‘KG’.

7. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

8. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £976.

9. The Claimants have the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimants shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimants to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.


1. I am satisfied that an anonymity order is necessary in the case to protect the interests of the Claimants who are a family with vulnerable a vulnerable young child. Such an order is justified in the interests of the administration of justice.

2. None of the grounds is reasonably arguable for the reasons given in the Defendant’s acknowledgment of service. The grounds essentially found upon the Claimants’ disagreement with the Defendant’s assessment of the evidence and information submitted in support of the change of condition application. It is not reasonably arguable that the Defendant failed to have proper regard to that evidence and information. Nor can it reasonably be argued that the Defendant’s decision was irrational in response to that information and evidence. None of the asserted grounds is able to overcome that fundamental position.