PAA -v- London Borough of Tower Hamlets (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/3684/2022

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

7 October 2022


The Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE


The King on the application of


London Borough of Tower Hamlets

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and expedition
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER amended under the slip rule pursuant to CPR 40.12

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE

  1. The Claimant shall hereafter be referred to in these proceedings as PAA.
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to her identification and the Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as PAA.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the document has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as PAA; and (b) any reference to the names of the Claimant be deleted from those documents.
  4. The time by which the Defendant (and any Interested Party) must file any Acknowledgement of Service is 4pm on 17 October 2022.
  5. The decision on permission for judicial review shall be considered on the papers before 25 October 2022 if possible, or as soon as is practicable thereafter.
  6. Any person affected by this Order may apply on one days written notice to the parties to have the Order set aside or varied.
  7. Costs reserved.


  1. I am satisfied that it is necessary to grant the Claimant anonymity and to make orders pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and 5.4C given that she is an acknowledge victim of trafficking and a refugee. Furthermore her claim contains sensitive personal details. In so concluding I have balanced her interests against considerations of open justice.
  2. The Claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of its duty under s.188(1) Housing Act 1996 to provide suitable interim accommodation. She says that her current accommodation is manifestly unsuitable for the reasons given in the Statement of Facts and Grounds (“SFG”).
  3. The Claimant seeks directions for expedited consideration of her application for permission. Essentially for the reasons at paras 70 – 74 of the SFG, I am satisfied that a degree of expedition is appropriate in this case. It will be a matter for the permission judge, if permission is granted, to decide upon the appropriateness of expedition beyond that stage.