PNS -v- Home Secretary (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-004258

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

18 September 2026

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King on the application of
PNS

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

  1. Anonymity:

(a) 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 and the names of her children are 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 PNS and her children as PKG (daughter) and PMW (son).

(b) 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 or her children in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (i) the Claimant must within 7 days file a redacted copy of her statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her children; (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant of her children, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; and (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Mandatory injunction:
    (a) By 4pm on Wednesday 30 September 2026, the Defendant must make arrangements for the provision of accommodation to the Claimant and her children in London or within a reasonable travel distance of Croydon.
    (b) The Defendant may by 4pm on Tuesday 22 September 2026 file and serve a request to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a).
    (c) The Defendant may by 4pm on Wednesday 23 September 2026 file and serve any submissions or documents in support of any request under paragraph 2(b).
    (d) The Claimant may by 4pm on Friday 25 September 2026 file and serve any submissions or documents in response.
    (e) Any request under paragraph 2(b) will be referred to the Immediates Judge for consideration on Monday 28 or Tuesday 29 September 2026.
    THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE
  2. Directions: The parties have liberty to apply, in writing on notice, for any bespoke case-management directions.
  3. Costs: Costs are reserved.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: The grounds for judicial review set out cogent grounds for the anonymity order, which I am satisfied is necessary. The Claimant is a vulnerable person with an outstanding asylum protection claim, and her children require protection. Publication of their identity could expose them to additional risk in the context of circumstances described in relation to their country of origin (Georgia). There are also relevant and specific features of the case relating to domestic abuse, mental health, welfare and wellbeing. I have included liberty to apply, to allow anonymity protection within this published order to be challenged and scrutinised.
  2. Mandatory injunction: On the face of it, this is a strong claim. A decision letter (23 June 2026) described the Claimant’s request for accommodation in London on educational grounds given where the daughter is attending school, and granted that request. “Having fully considered your circumstances”, the Secretary of State was “satisfied that it is reasonable to authorise your request to be allocated accommodation in London on educational grounds”. The educational provider was advised. It was specifically agreed to seek accommodation within a reasonable travel distance of the relevant location (Croydon). But then, on 24 August 2026, the Claimant found herself and the children picked up by a taxi and taken to Liverpool. On the face of it, questions of viability of the pleaded claim, the balance of justice and the public interest all support interim relief.
  3. Protection for the Home Secretary: It is important that the Secretary of State should have the chance to be heard about interim relief, if she considers that there is a good basis for resisting it. There is a mechanism and a timetable in my order for interim relief to be contested, at the Secretary of State’s initiative. If invoked, another Judge will consider interim relief afresh. However, in the absence of that initiative, I see no reason for making directions necessitating the papers being considered by a second High Court Judge at a subsequent stage. Ongoing uncertainty and delay need to be minimised. Unless the Home Secretary can persuade the Court to lift the injunction, this family must promptly be brought back to London, with accommodation which allows the daughter’s education in Croydon to continue, as the Secretary of State had assessed on 23 June 2026 was the appropriate response.