October 13, 2026

PLG -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-003635

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

13 October 2026

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King on the application of
PLG

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties.

ORDER BY THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

1. Anonymity: (1) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 “PLG”. (2) 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. (3) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (i) the Claimant’s representatives 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. (4) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

2. Extensions of time are granted (1) to 4.9.26 for the acknowledgment of service (2) to 25.9.26 for the reply.

3. Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

4. There shall be a case-management hearing, fixed on the first reasonably available date after 1 November 2026 (time estimate 60 minutes), to address: (1) mechanism for compliance by the Defendant with the duty of candour; (2) expedition; (3) directions; and (4) anything else suitable to be addressed.

5. The parties have liberty to apply, in writing on notice, to vary paragraph 4 or for further directions.

Reasons

(1) I am satisfied that anonymity is necessary. The Claimant has located to the UK under the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) scheme. The case is about additional family members (AFM) who he seeks to have considered to join him under scheme criteria. The safety of the family members is said to be at risk. The SSD rightly recognises the need for an anonymity order.

(2) I am satisfied that the claim crosses the threshold of arguability with a realistic prospect of success. I make these observations to assist the parties. There is, as I see it, an interface in this case between the specific facts and a general policy justification. It may be that the case will ultimately turn on the latter. The Claimant received notification of eligibility (12.5.25), on an undisclosed basis. He applied for AFM (10.6.25), within the prescribed 30 days. An unpublished decision was being taken (6.25) to discontinue the ARR scheme from 4.7.25. His biographic stage was completed (24.7.25), after what he says were 5 weeks of inaction (27.5.25 to 1.7.25). He was subsequently told (20.10.25) that his was eligibility under the ARR scheme, and then (14.5.26) that the AFM application would not be progressed because his biographic stage had not been completed by 4.7.25. The Claimant says there has been public law error, characterised in various ways. The SSD says the process points lead nowhere, that the published policy (31.10.25) was adhered to, and the ARR scheme discontinuance, with its AFM biographic cut-off date of 4.7.25, was justified and proportionate. There is certainly an arguable defence. But I see no clean knock-out blows, nor a previously decided case which directly supplies the answer. I am fortified in granting permission by the fact that the SSD has indicated that there are relevant materials, which are disclosable under the duty of candour, and which are not presently before the Court at this permission stage.

(3) A delay point is taken by the SSD, but the policy (31.10.25) and an earlier letter (4.3.26) did not provide for the Claimant the clarity of the impugned decision (14.5.26). That impugned decision is a legitimate target. It was challenged within 3 months. I do not think an extension of time is needed. If it were, I would have granted it. The approach taken by the Claimants’ representatives was understandable, the issues are important, and if, in the context and circumstances, this claim is going to fail that should squarely be by reference to its legal merits. The extensions of time sought in the two applications are justified and appropriate.