Safe Passage International & others -v- SoS for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim No: AC-2025-LON-004291
AC-2025-LON-004550
AC-2025-LON-004658

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

19 February 2026

Before:
The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:
Safe Passage International (claim 4291)
(2) AXY and (3) BSZ (claim 4550)
ESH (claim 4658)
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
-and-
(1) EXC (2) EXD (3) EXT (claim 4658) (Interested Parties)

Recitals:
R1. UPON the Claimants having filed claims challenging the suspension from 4.9.25 of Appendix FRP, on overlapping grounds here labelled (a) to (g), as follows:

(1) claim 4291 (28.11.25) on grounds (39pp) of (a) unreasonableness, (b) breach of best interests duties to children, (c) public sector equality duty;

(2) claim 4550 (4.12.25) on perfected grounds (45pp) of (a) unreasonableness (process), (c) public sector equality duty, (d) failure to
ask the right question/ apparent bias (predetermination), (e) discrimination (Art 14);

(3) claim 4658 (8.12.25) on grounds (52pp) of (a) unreasonableness, (b) breach of best interests duties to children, (c) public sector equality duty,
(e) discrimination (Art 14), (f) discrimination (2010 Act), (g) Art 8.

R2. AND UPON the Defendant: having recognised the links between the claims; having made early disclosure of documents; having (with an extension of time) filed overlapping summary grounds of resistance; and having invited a joined-up consideration of the three overlapping claims.

R3. AND UPON the Court being satisfied of the following:

(1) that all three claims cross the threshold of arguability, as to each of the grounds advanced, to none of which has the Defendant identified a clean knock-out blow;

(2) that there is no well-founded permission-stage objection to the standing of the Claimant in claim 4291, whether viewed at the time of making the claim or at the present time;

(3) that there is no well-founded permission-stage delay objection in claim 4658, a claim which the Court notes was made within 3 months of 9.9.25, when the suspension impacted on the Claimant.

R4. AND UPON the Court being further satisfied of the following: (1) that the Claimants in claim 4550 should in the circumstances be entitled to rely on the perfected grounds and witness statements, as if filed with the claim, and entitled to withhold an address in a witness statement;

(2) that anonymity protection is necessary in Claim 4550 for the reasons in the perfected grounds at 132-133 (an anonymity order having already been made in claim 4658);

(3) that the criteria for a costs capping order in claim 4291 (set out in the annex to the Claimant’s submissions dated 28.11.25) are satisfied and that the order sought is justified as necessary and appropriate in the interests of justice, having regard to the prescribed relevancies and in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, for the reasons given by the Claimant;

(4) that expedition and a clear timetable are justified as necessary in the interests of justice, with the three cases being linked and heard together at a single hearing;

(5) that the timetable in this Order (not to be varied, including by agreement between the parties, absent approval by the Court) will reconcile all competing interests and imperatives, including a sufficiency of time for case-preparation having regard to the substantial time and steps already taken;

(6) that the parties will need to cooperate to streamline the case and make it manageable, it being essential for the Claimants’ representatives to exercise discipline in eliminating repetition;

(7) that, this being a case where much of the contextual factual background should be capable of being agreed so as to assist the Court, the parties should be required to file a joint document containing such facts as are
agreed;

(8) that the Claimant’s representatives in claim 4658 can be expected to address the question of whether a litigation friend is needed for the Interested Parties, and whether any direction is needed as to any service on or separate participation by the Interested Parties, and revert to the Court as necessary.

R5. AND UPON the Court (1) not being presently persuaded that a case-management hearing (suggested by the Defendant) or pre-trial review is necessary, but (2) giving all parties permission to apply to vary any part of
paragraphs 5 or 6 of this Order and (3) indicating that Fordham J may be available up to 27 March 2026 if any party wishes (on notice) to approach his clerk.

R6. AND following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties, including the Defendant’s grounds of resistance and submissions resisting decisions and directions contained within this Order, and reply submissions.


ORDER BY THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  1. Anonymity (claim 4550): (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 Claimants’ names in claim 4550 are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and (ii) the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as AXY and BSZ.

    (b) Pursuant to s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of those Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (i) the relevant parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the names, addresses and any other information likely to lead to the identification of those Claimants; (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of those Claimants, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time.

    (d) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

    (e) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Permission:
    (a) Permission to apply for judicial review is granted to all Claimants on all grounds.
    (b) Permission is granted for the Claimants in claim 4550: to rely on the replacement grounds for judicial review (18 December 2025); to rely on the witness statements filed on 19 December 2025 and their
    exhibits; and to omit the organisational address of RefuAid from the Witness Statement of Anna Jones dated 18 December 2025.
  3. Cost capping order: The Claimant’s application in case 4291 for a cost-capping order is granted as follows:
    (a) Costs recoverable from the Claimant shall be capped at £75,000
    (inclusive of VAT).

    (b) The rates chargeable by the Claimant for the Claimant’s Counsel and Solicitor under any order(s) for costs in its favour in these proceedings shall be limited to the standard inter partes rates set for Treasury
    Counsel and Treasury Solicitor of equivalent seniority in a case where the Secretary of State is successful.
  4. Expedition: The substantive hearing of the three claims is expedited.
  5. Substantive hearing: The three claims are to be listed together for a hearing before a High Court Judge on Wednesday 13 May 2026 to Friday 15 May 2026 (time estimate 3 days), with reading days (if possible) on both Monday 11 May 2026 and Tuesday 12 May 2026, with oral submissions in the following sequence (subject to any contrary direction by the trial Judge): (1) Claimant’s advocate in claim 4291; (2) Claimants’ advocate in claim 4550 (without repetition); (3) Claimant’s advocate in claim 4658 (without repetition); (4) Defendant’s advocate; (5) replies.
  6. Directions:
    (a) By 4pm on Tuesday 24 February 2026 (i) each Claimant’s representative must serve electronically, on the Claimant’s representatives in the other two claims, all documents which they have filed with the Court and all orders made by the Court; and (ii) the Defendant’s representatives must serve electronically, on each Claimant’s representatives, the documents which the Defendant has filed in the other two claims.

    (b) The Defendant must, by 4pm on Thursday 26 March 2026, file and serve: (i) a single document containing Detailed Grounds for contesting all three claims (with permission if necessary to exceed the expected page limit); and (ii) any further written evidence to be relied on.

    (c) Any application by any Claimant to serve any evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, by 4pm on Thursday 2 April 2026.

    (d) All parties must cooperate in seeking to identify what facts they are able to agree, to be set out in a statement of agreed facts which the Claimants’ representatives are responsible for lodging by 4pm on Monday 13 April 2026.

    (e) All parties must agree the contents of a single composite hearing bundle, which the Claimants’ representatives are responsible for lodging by 4pm on Monday 13 April 2026 as (a) an electronic version prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website and (b) a double-sided hard-copy version for the Court.

    (f) By 4pm on Wednesday 15 April 2026 the Claimant in claim 429 shall file and serve a skeleton argument.

    (g) By 4pm on Monday 20 April 2026 the Claimants in claim 4550 shall file and serve a skeleton argument, avoiding repetition.

    (h) By 4pm on Wednesday 22 April 2026 the Claimant in claim 465 shall file and serve a skeleton argument, avoiding repetition.

    (i) By 4pm on Friday 1 May 2026 the Defendant shall file and serve a single skeleton argument in all cases.

    (j) All parties must agree the contents of an authorities bundle, which the Claimants’ representatives are responsible for lodging by 4pm on Tuesday 5 May 2026 as (a) an electronic version prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website and (b) a doublesided hard-copy version for the Court.

    (k) All parties must agree (i) a list of issues, (ii) a chronology (with page references to the hearing bundle), (iii) an agreed list of proposed essential pre-reading (with page references in the hearing bundle and authorities bundle) and (iv) a proposed timetable for oral submission at the hearing, which the Claimants’ representatives are responsible for lodging by 4pm on Thursday 7 May 2026.

    (l) These directions may not be varied by agreement between the parties, except insofar as the Court agrees and approves a proposed consent order.

    (m) All parties have liberty to apply in writing on notice to vary any part of paragraphs 5-6 of this Order.

Signed: MR JUSTICE FORDHAM
Date: 19 February 2026