ORE -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000457
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
13 March 2025
Before:
Mr Justice Johnson
Between:
The King (on the application of)
ORE
-v-
Secretary of State for Defence
ORDER
On the claimant’s application for permission to claim judicial review, and for anonymity and an abridgement of time for filing the Acknowledgement of Service
And on the defendant’s application for an extension of time for filing an Acknowledgement of Service
And on it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the claimant, pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant.
Permission to claim judicial review
1. Permission to claim judicial review is granted on each of the two grounds of claim.
Anonymity
2. The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as “ORE” (“the cipher”).
3. The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
4. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
5. Pursuant to s.11 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.
6. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant.
(b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
Claimant’s request for expedition
7. The claimant’s request for expedition is refused.
Defendant’s request for an extension of time
8. The defendant’s request for an extension of time to file an acknowledgement of service is refused.
Case Management Directions
9. The defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds (ii) any written evidence to be relied on and (iii) any application under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.
10. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
11. The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
12. The claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
13. The defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
14. The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
15. The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.
16. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.
OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS
There is a degree of urgency, because of the risk (on his case) faced by the claimant. As against that, however, the background is complex and I do not consider that the time for the defendant to respond to the claim should be abridged. That time has, however, now passed, and the defendant has not filed an Acknowledgement of Service. Instead, on the very last day for filing an Acknowledgement of Service, the defendant filed an application for an extension of time. I do not consider that any sufficiently good explanation has been given to extend the period of time for filing an Acknowledgement of Service. I therefore refuse that application.
In the absence of any response from the defendant, I consider that each ground of claim has arguable merit, and I grant permission on each ground.
I have made routine case management directions. I have made provision for the defendant to file an application under section 6 of the 2013 Act. If such an application is made then that will have an impact on the listing of the substantive hearing. In any event, the case should be referred to the Judge in Charge for allocation.