NTL -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-003299

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

16 July 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
NTL
(Claimant/Applicant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant/Respondent)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief, dated 15 July 2026 and for an order granting anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant, or any other matters which could lead to his identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “NTL” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:

(a) a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;

(b) if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;

(c) any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.

  1. This Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5)
  2. With immediate effect and until further order of the court, the Defendant is to provide the Claimant with Schedule 10 support and accommodation.
  3. By 4:00pm on Monday 20 July 2026, the Defendant shall file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief.
  4. By 4:00pm on Wednesday 22 July 2026, the Claimant may file and serve any reply to the Defendant’s response.
  5. By no later than midday on Thursday 23 July 2026, the file shall be restored to a judge of the Administrative Court to consider all appropriate orders and/or directions, which may include the listing of a hearing at short notice to the parties.
  6. Costs reserved.

REASONS

  1. This application is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. By his claim for judicial review, the Claimant seeks to challenge the Defendant’s decision to discontinue support and accommodation which she had previously provided under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. Whilst that decision was taken on 8 June 2026, the urgency arises from the fact that the Claimant is to be evicted from his property today, whereupon, it is said, he will become street homeless. The bundle contains independent medical evidence of his serious mental health conditions and associated needs.
  3. Pre-action correspondence indicates that the Defendant’s position to date has been that Schedule 10 support has been discontinued because the Claimant has been assessed to be eligible for accommodation provided by the local authority under the Care Act 2014. It is the Claimant’s position that the assessment on which that decision is based does not indicate that he is so eligible. The assessment provided to the court is dated 16 June 2026 and includes the following text:

    ‘Overall, the MDT is of the view that the provision of support is necessary to mitigate identified risk risks and to promote [NTL’s] well-being. It is considered that this support could be effectively delivered within the context of [NTL’s] current home environment, provided that it is appropriately structured and responsive to his needs…

    Care and support needs

    Managing and maintaining nutrition, developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships, accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering, making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community, including public transport, and recreational facilities or services.’

    Each of the identified needs was then explained. Under the heading ‘Summary of significant impact’, the following view was set out:

    ‘…It is considered that [NTL’s] needs can be appropriately met within his current accommodation and that he does not require specialist or residential provision at this time…’

    Within the section in which alternative support options were considered, the report’s author stated:

    ‘Other options considered for [NTL] included: supported living accommodation – [NTL] does not meet the threshold of 10 supportive hours contact a week for supported living. Moreover, [NTL] would struggle to manage the chaotic nature of these available provisions and would find recovery more appropriate in his current setting or someone he can live independently if provided…’ (sic)
  4. On 23 June 2026, the Defendant ceased to provide financial support to the Claimant. It is said that he currently survives on the limited sum which he has managed to save from the Schedule 10 support formerly provided and that he is imminently at risk of destitution.
  5. Without deciding the question of permission, on the material with which the court has been provided to date, there would appear to be a serious issue to be tried as to whether the sole reason provided by the Defendant to date for discontinuation of support is founded on an erroneous premise, and, thus, unlawful. The court would be assisted by the Defendant’s response to the application. In particular having regard to the Claimant’s state of health and related needs, and his imminent street homelessness, damages would not be an adequate remedy. For the same reasons, and having regard to those aspects of the care assessment set out above, which indicate that the Claimant has been assessed not currently to be eligible or suitable for local authority accommodation, the balance of convenience favours the order made at paragraph 6 above pending receipt of that response, whereafter the court will consider the appropriate way forward.

Anonymity

  1. The details of the Claimant’s mental health conditions and care needs are sensitive. Non-disclosure of his identity is necessary for the protection of his interests. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision made by paragraph 4 of the above orders, in which the reference to ‘any interested party’ would encompass representatives of the Press and other media.

Signed: Mrs Justice Ellenbogen Dated: 16/07/26