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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1392/2023

In the High Court of Justice
Administrative Court

26 April 2023


Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department


On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, an abridgment of time on the Defendant to serve its acknowledgment of service and to arrange a hearing for interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. An order for anonymity is made under CPR 39.2(4) in respect of name and address of the Claimant who shall be known as PS, his wife and daughter or any details leading to their identification.
  2. In accordance with CPR 5.4C a person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or orders from the Court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order is anonymised such that (a) the Claimant is referred to in the document as PS and (b) any reference to the names of the Claimant, his wife or his daughter be deleted from these documents and be referred to as PS.
  3. Any person affected by 1 or 2 of this Order may apply on notice to all the parties to have this Order set aside or varied.
  4. Time for the Defendant shall have time to serve its Acknowledgement of Service shall be abridged to be no later than 4 pm on 5 May 2023 together with its response to the application for interim relief including any evidence on which it proposes to rely.
  5. The case shall be listed for hearing on 12 May 2023 with a time estimate of 2 hours to consider the Claimant’s application for interim relief and, if appropriate, permission.


  1. The various orders to ensure anonymity are amply justified by CPR 39.2(4) and CPR 5.4C.
  2. The material put before the Court by the Claimant shows there is a strong case to make these urgent applications; in particular, the Claimant has properly set out its case in its pre-action protocol letter dated 16 March 2023 and the Defendant’s response on 31 March 2023
    is not persuasive.