MMG -v- City of Doncaster Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case Number: CO/116/2023

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

26 June 2023

The Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE

On appeal from the Valuation Tribunal for England

(by his Father and Litigation Friend Andrew Muscroft-Gosden)
City of Doncaster Council

Anonymity Order

Following consideration of the Appellant’s appeal bundle and the parties’ skeleton arguments

And upon consideration of the Appellant’s application dated 1 March 2023 for (i) anonymity; and (ii) an order substituting Andrew Mucroft-Gosden as the Appellant and extending time for him to bring the appeal

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE


  1. Identification of the Appellant is prohibited, who is to be known as MMG throughout these proceedings.
  2. There shall be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the Appellant by name references to MMG. Insofar as necessary, any document disclosing the Appellant’s name already filed in the proceedings shall be replaced with a version describing him as MMG.
  3. Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D a person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with the direction above.
  4. The Court file shall be clearly noted with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 9 June 2023 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
  5. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Appellant.
  6. Any non-party affected by this order may apply on notice to all parties to have the order set aside or varied.  
    Substitution of the Appellant
  7. The Respondent shall provide a brief written response to the Appellant’s application for substitution by 4 pm on 3 July 2023.
  8. The issue of substitution of the Appellant and an extension of time shall be dealt with as a preliminary issue at the appeal hearing, now listed for 26 July 2023.



  1. The current Appellant is a disabled child. The particular need for the protection of the identity of children in legal proceedings is recognised by statute (the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, section 39) and case law.
  2. This claim will necessarily involve consideration of personal information relating to the Appellant’s disabilities, vulnerabilities, health and needs. Publication of such personal information is likely to be harmful to the Appellant and their development. The Appellant’s rights under Article 8 are engaged. The case can accurately be reported by the media without the need to refer to the Appellant’s identity.
  3. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that (i) anonymity is reasonable, necessary to protect the interests of the Appellant (applying the approach set out by the Court of Appeal in XXX v Camden LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 1468), and proportionate; (ii) the limited intrusion into the open justice principle effected by such anonymity is justified; and (iii) having regard to the Article 10 rights of the media, there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of the Appellant’s identity to justify interfering with their Article 8 rights by naming them.

Substitution of the Appellant

  1. The Appellant has asked that the issue of substitution be dealt with at the appeal hearing and that is appropriate.
  2. It would assist the judge in determining that application to have further detail as to the Respondent’s position on it (if indeed it remains oppposed), hence the order at paragraph 8 above.