NCK -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-000287

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 July 2026

Before:

Alan Bates,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
NCK
(Claimant)

-v-

Westminster City Council
(Defendant)

Order

On consideration of the Claimant’s Application Notices dated 8 June 2026 (sealed 15 June 2026) and 22 June 2026 (sealed 24 June 2026) in advance of the oral renewal hearing listed for 14 July 2026

ORDER BY ALAN BATES, SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Anonymity and reporting restrictions:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and/or section 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 ”NCK”;

(iii) the name of the Claimant’s child is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(iv) the Claimant’s child is to be referred to orally and in writing as “the Child”.

(b) Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant, or of the Claimant’s child, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of either of those persons in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(i) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or the Claimant’s child, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; and

(ii) 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 the order set out in this paragraph must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Claimant’s application to appear at the hearing remotely, and precise listing arrangements:

(a) The Claimant’s application to participate in the hearing remotely by telephone or video conferencing software is refused. The Claimant must attend the hearing listed for 14 July 2026 in person.

(b) The hearing listed for 14 July 2026 is to be listed to start at a time between 11 a.m. and midday, with a time estimate of 1 hour.

  1. Costs: Costs in the case.

REASONS AND OBSERVATIONS

  1. Anonymity and reporting restrictions: The claim involves facts relating to the needs of a minor child who has disabilities and to a Claimant who says she has suffered domestic abuse. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the Claimant’s application for anonymity and reporting restrictions so as to protect the privacy of the Claimant’s child. This is a proportionate interference with the principle of open justice. Although information relating to the identity of the Claimant and her child will be withheld from the public, there will still be a judgment in open court from which the public can understand the issues in the case and the reasons for decisions made by the Court.
  2. Claimant’s application to participate in the hearing remotely: Having read the Claimant’s reasons for seeking to participate in the hearing remotely, I am not satisfied that there are good reasons for permitting remote attendance. She refers to her responsibilities for caring for her disabled child, her living in unstable housing, and her own medical conditions. However, she lives in the London area and: (a) her child is of secondary school age and it is not apparent to me why the Claimant would not be able to attend court during hours when a child of that age would normally be in school; (b) the alleged instability of the Claimant’s housing situation does not disclose a reason why she cannot come to the court building; and (c) no details of her medical conditions is provided for showing that those medical conditions would make it impossible or unduly difficult for her to travel to the court building. There would be significant disadvantages to remote attendance; in particular: (i) it is not clear to me that the Claimant has access to high quality reliable internet connection, and there is anyway a risk of technology problems on the day (whether on the Claimant’s side or the Court’s side) preventing her effective participation in the hearing; and (ii) if there is scope for the issues between the parties to be informally resolved on the day of the hearing, this will be assisted by the Claimant being physically present in the court building (where the Defendant’s Counsel will be in attendance and can speak with her).
  3. I have specified that the hearing be listed to start not before 11 a.m and not after midday. This will assist the Claimant in being able to travel to court and also being able to get to her child’s school by the usual school day end time.

Signed: DHCJ Alan Bates
Date: 10 July 2026