MUF -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001184

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

30 March 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

THE KING on the application of
MUF

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

and

(1) MCV
(2) MNE
(3) MNG
(4) MNP
(5) MNR
(6) MRB
(7) MAS
(8) MFT
(Interested Parties)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review

And on an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:

  1. 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;
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “MUF”;
    (iii) the Interested Parties are to be referred to orally and in writing as “MCV”,“MNE”, “MNG”, “MNP”, “MNR”, “MRB”, “MAS” and “MFT”; and
    (iv) the witness MRN is to be referred to orally and in writing as “MAR”.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or any of the Interested Parties or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant of any of the Interested Parties in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (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 and/or any of the Interested Parties and/or the witness MAR;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and/or any of the Interested Parties and/or the witness MAR, 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.
  2. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) The Defendant shall, by 4pm on 17 April 2026, either (i) file application under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013; or (ii) confirm that no such application will be made.
    (b) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 17 April 2026.
    (c) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 22 April 2026.
    (d) The application for permission to apply for judicial review shall be listed for hearing before a judge as soon as practicable after 25 April 2026, with a time estimate of 1.5 hours.
    (e) In the event that the Defendant files an application pursuant to paragraph 2(a)(i) above, that application shall be listed for hearing immediately before the hearing of the Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review.
    (f) Any application by the Claimant for interim relief must be filed and served by no later than 4pm on 22 April 2026.

Reasons

Anonymity: I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons to grant the anonymity orders and for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. Those reasons are stated in the annex to the claim form and the evidence of Mr Harris.

Abridgement of time/expedition: The circumstances of this case require some expedition in its management. It is necessary to enable the Defendant to consider whether to make an application pursuant to section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. In the event that such an application is made, it is right that it should be determined before the application for permission is considered. There is a suggestion that the Claimant may seek interim relief in the event that permission is granted. Any such application must be made prior to the permission hearing so that the judge is able to consider it at that hearing. It is appropriate to leave the question of further case management directions to the judge who considers the question of permission.