LG -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

UT ref: UA-2026-000207-PIP

In the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

From the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Chesterfield
SC308/24/00284
Tribunal decision date: 22 April 2025

11 June 2026

Before:

Stewart Wright
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Between:

LG
(Appellant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Respondent)

Order

NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

  1. It is ordered, under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant.
  2. The appellant shall be known as LG.
  3. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside.
  4. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

REASONS

  1. This anonymity order is made on the application of the appellant. It is sought for the following reasons:

“I wish to maintain the anonymity to which applied when my representative initially submitted the UT1.

I do not want my most intimate health difficulties, restrictions and disabilities available in the public domain for anyone to see. I feel that this would potentially subject me to unreasonable scrutiny, ridicule and humiliation. Both my wife and I are disabled and having my personal details published in this way would make us both feel exceedingly vulnerable. Whilst my wife is not named within the proceedings, she is referred to, as is the fact that she is disabled and that I care for her. We are not on good terms with our neighbours who have actively ostracised us since we moved in. My wife is American and we have already been subjected to racist abuse which the police were involved in, therefore there is already a risk of harm.”

  1. I have by a separate decision made today allowed the appellant’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 22 April 2025. That decision on the appeal will be published on public facing websites and, if no anonymity order is made, the appellant would be named in that decision.
  2. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases.
  3. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle to the limited extent of not naming the appellant.
  4. I should start by saying that the appellant is wrong in arguing that his anonymity should continue. The UTAAC’s practice before 30 March 2026 of only using an appellant’s actual initials in any published decision was no more than that and did not legally confer anonymity on appellants. That, in part, is why the change was made on 30 March 2026.
  5. The legal issue on which the error of law appeal to the Upper Tribunal has succeeded has necessitated reference to some of the appellant’s his wife’s intimate health details. In that context, I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made because I accept the risk of harm that would arise for the appellant if he was to be identified in these proceedings, and the consequent risk of jigsaw identification of his wife and harm she may then suffer, because those health details and their claiming of disability benefits would then be in the public domain.
  6. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision in this case being published online.
  7. The letters LG have been chosen randomly and are not the appellant’s initials.

Authorised for issue by Stewart Wright
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

On 11th June 2026