NND -v- Liverpool City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-MAN-000336

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

31 July 2025

Before:

Mr CMG Ockelton

Between:

The King on the application of
NND

-v-

Liverpool City Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and other relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY Mr C M G Ockelton sitting as a judge of the High Court

  1. Anonymity:
    a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and 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; and
    ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as NND.
    b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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 a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    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. Expedition: No Order is made. The application for permission is to be put before a single judge for determination on the papers without delay after the expiry of the time limited for the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service.
  3. Litigation Friend: The Claimant has permission to continue these proceedings without the appointment of a Litigation Friend.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant claims to be a child. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Expedition: These proceedings, issued on 29 July 2025, challenge the decision of the Defendant on 9 June 2025. Given the passage of time between the decision and the commencement of proceedings it would not be right to impose the Claimant’s proposed timetable on the Defendant now.
  3. Litigation Friend: The Order above is the appropriate one in the circumstances.