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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003253

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:

Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC

Between:

The King
on the application of
Patrick Martins
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

and

AA
(Interested Party)

Order

On the Claimant’s renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings heard on 25 June 2026

AND UPON hearing from the Claimant in person and Mr Michael Biggs of Counsel for the Defendant and the Interested Party not being present or represented

ORDER BY DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE GUY VASSALL-ADAMS KC

  1. The anonymity order of Eleanor Grey KC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge dated 1 May 2026 shall be varied to remove the anonymity given to the Claimant, who shall be named in these proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt, the anonymity order made by the said order in respect of the Interested Party (mother) and the Claimant’s child remain in effect.
  2. The Defendant is granted permission to file its Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence out of time and permission to attend the renewal hearing to make oral representations.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review is refused for the reasons given in my ex tempore judgment.
  4. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant its costs of the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,616, within 14 days.

REASONS

(1) In relation to anonymity, the Claimant had not applied for anonymity but Eleanor Grey KC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge had granted him anonymity on the basis that this was necessary to preserve the anonymity of the mother and child. That decision was wrong in my view as identification of the Claimant does not risk identification of the Interested Party and child, who do not share his name and about whom very little needs to be said in these proceedings. The mere fact that everyone was anonymised in the family proceedings does not make the same degree of anonymity appropriate here. Accordingly, I varied the Judge’s order to name the Claimant in accordance with the open justice principle. As the hearing proceeded, I was glad I had not disturbed the anonymity order in favour of the Interested Party as the Claimant used the occasion of the public hearing to make a number of scandalous allegations against her in her absence which were not relevant to the issues I had to decide.

(2) In relation to costs, I was unable to complete my ruling at the hearing due to the rude and disrespectful behaviour of the Claimant after I had given my judgment refusing permission. The Claimant refused to sit down when I asked him to, interrupted me while I was ruling in relation to the Defendant’s costs, slow hand clapped me at the end of that ruling and shouted at me in a threatening manner before leaving Court. The Claimant’s misbehaviour, which I considered amount to contempt in the face of the court, meant that I was unable properly to consider his application for costs at the time. As matters moved very fast and the Claimant soon left court I decided to take no further action in respect of the contempt.

(3) Accordingly, after the hearing I gave the Claimant an opportunity to make written submissions on costs and I have now considered his application for costs, costs schedule and related documents. I have also considered the Defendant’s responsive written submissions.

(4) Pursuant to CPR 44.2, the court has a broad discretion on costs but under CPR 44.2(a) the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. This claim was fundamentally misconceived as the Defendant had no legal power under the British Nationality Act 1980 s.40(3) to do that which the Claimant was asking her to do, namely deprive his son of his British citizenship on the grounds of fraud (in circumstances where he had acquired British nationality by birth, not by registration or naturalization). Accordingly, this claim was doomed from the outset. The claim originally related to a delay by the Defendant in taking the decision but was then amended, after the Defendant made a negative decision and filed its AOS and Summary Grounds in March 2026, to a substantive challenge to the decision. The refusal of permission means that the Defendant is the successful party and the Defendant is entitled to its costs of the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, which I summarily assessed at the hearing in the sum of £2,304.

(5) The Claimant was however put to some additional cost by reason of the ineffective hearing that took place on 17 March 2026 when the original oral renewal hearing was adjourned at the Defendant’s request so that the Defendant could belatedly file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence. Costs were reserved on that occasion by Eleanor Grey KC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The Defendant attended in person at that hearing so I consider that the costs attributable to the adjournment comprise the costs of his attendance as a litigant-in-person and the travel expenses incurred attending the hearing. Summarily assessing those costs, I will allow the Claimant 12 hours of his time at £24 per hour, plus the cost of the Eurostar tickets at £400. The total costs awarded to the Claimant are £688, which I have deducted from the Defendant’s costs to reach the figure set out in the Order.

(6) I asked the parties to file written submissions on costs relating to the period before March 2026 so I could deal with the costs of the adjournment. Although I had understood previously that the Claimant was a litigant-in-person the Claimant now claims to have instructed a lawyer and has filed a schedule of costs for £18,500. The reliability of this document is not entirely clear as the lawyer whose typed signature appears on it shares the Claimant’s surname and there are no invoices supporting the expenses allegedly incurred (unlike the Eurostar receipts in support of his travel expenses). In his narrative account by email the Claimant seeks his costs and states that £14,500 of those costs were incurred before March 2026. That account is inconsistent with the schedule of work done on documents which shows only two items that pre-date “Analysis of late AOS filing” (which was in March 2026) and they total £4,000. On the contrary, if the schedule is to be believed it appears that the majority of his claimed costs (£14,500) were incurred after the AOS was filed, not before (as one would expect). However, even though I consider the Claimant’s account to be unreliable, it makes no difference in practice as he is the unsuccessful party and I decline to award him any costs in relation to the claim generally.

Signed: Guy Vassall-Adams KC
Date: 16 July 2026