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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001500

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

30 September 2026

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King on the application of
PSH

-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:

(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 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 PSH.

(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 in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) 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.

(d) The Claimant’s representatives shall by 4pm on Friday 16th October 2026 write to the Court, copied to the Defendant, explaining why anonymity was not sought in the claim documents, such letter to be considered in the first instance by a Lawyer of the Administrative Court to decide whether the papers should be referred back to a Judge.

  1. Permission:
    (a) Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
    (b) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is two hours.
  2. Deferral of timetable: The deadline for the Defendant to file and serve: (i) Detailed Grounds of Resistance; and (ii) any further written evidence to be relied on is extended to 4pm on Friday 29 January 2027. Thereafter, the timetable in the Civil Procedure Rules shall apply.
  3. Liberty to apply: (1) Any party or person wishing to seek variation or discharge of paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) of this Order has liberty to make such an application on notice to the parties. (2) The parties shall have liberty to apply, in writing on notice, to vary paragraphs 1(d), 2(b) or 3 of this Order or for further directions.

Reasons

(1) This is an ARAP case where the adverse decision was on 13.3.24, the request for a review was on 4.5.24 and representations/ updating materials were provided on 21.1.25 and 30.7.25. Unlawful delay was raised from 21.1.25 and the proceedings were commenced on 19.3.26, but evidently without any further letter before claim. The summary grounds (28.4.26) raise an arguable defence to the lawfulness of the delay, but with no knock-out blow. An unconvincing point is also made about delay by the Claimant in bringing the claim. The hope is expressed of a decision by the end of 2026, in circumstances involving a large caseload, a regulated process with resourcing difficulties, and a queue-jumping concern.

(2) I have made an anonymity order protectively. I am concerned to see that anonymity does not appear to be raised anywhere in the papers. It is said that the Claimant is in hiding from the Taliban. I am satisfied that there is a compelling necessity for the Court to act protectively as to anonymity, but with liberty to apply. The Court requires an explanation from the Claimant’s representatives as to why this was not raised.

(3) I have granted permission because the claim crosses the viability threshold for arguably unlawful delay. But I am imposing a deferred timetable for further steps in the case. This is a pragmatic course, because of the SSD’s indicative timeframe of the end of 2026 for a decision which will resolve the issue raised with the Court, rendering the delay point academic. I have sought to strike a fair and proportionate balance, to avoid diverting resources into defending and prosecuting the claim if the practical solution is on the horizon. And everyone is protected by liberty to apply.