Sandor-Laszlo Pal and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-00141

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

10 July 2025

Before:

Hugh Southey KC

Between:

Sandor-Laszlo Pal

Gabriela Pal

BHD

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On applications by the Claimants for permission to apply for judicial review, anonymity, disclosure, expedition and interim relief and an application by the Defendants for an extension of time to serve an acknowledgment of service.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants and the Defendants

ORDER BY HUGH SOUTHEY KC (sitting as a judge of the HIGH COURT)

  1. Litigation Friend
    (a) Within 14 days the Claimants shall clarify the position regarding the need for a litigation friend and make any necessary applications.
  2. 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 3rd 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 BHD.
    (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 parties 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 Third Claimant;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Third 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) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  3. Further conduct of this matter:
    (a) The Claimant shall provide submissions regarding transfer of a damages claim to the County Court by 4pm on 23 July 2025. Submissions limited to 5 A4 pages.
    (b) The Defendant shall provide submissions regarding transfer of a damages claim to the County Court by 4pm on 6 August 2025. Submissions limited to 5 A4 pages.
    (c) The Claimant shall provide submissions in response to the Defendant by 4pm on 13 August 2025. Submissions limited to 2 A4 pages

Reasons

(1) Litigation friend: CPR part 21.2 makes it clear that a litigation friend is mandatory where a child litigates. That rule is intended to ensure that a child enjoys important safeguards. The absence of a litigation friend is sufficient to mean that proceedings should be dismissed. Prima facie it appears that there has been a failure to comply with part 21.2 in relation to the Third Claimant. I recognise that the Claimants are not represented and so may have overlooked this. However, this needs to be addressed.
(2) Anonymity: The Third Claimant is a child. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. I can see no reason why the adult Claimants should not be named. In practice, however, the order in relation to the Third Claimant is likely to prevent the naming of the other Claimants.
(3) Permission/further conduct of this matter:
a. I have extended time for the submission of the Defendant’s summary grounds and considered them. It appears to me that they contain important information and it would not be consistent with the overriding objective to ignore them.
b. The decision challenged is said to be:
UK Border Force’s decision on 10 April 2025 to deny entry and detain me and my family while appeal HU/66787/2024 was pending, charging my wife with ” pregnancy ”, while all of us holds Pre-Settled Status under the EU Settlement Scheme, my son ( Child A ) was also born in United Kingdom on the 04/03/2024
c. There appears to be no doubt that on 8 May 2025 the Defendant’s Foreign Convictions Team indicated that the Claimants are entitled to enter in accordance with the EU Settlement Scheme. It appears to me that that means that the decision challenged has essentially been set aside. That suggests that these proceedings are academic.
d. The Claimant has made submissions that the matter is not academic. It is essentially said that there was a need for findings regarding historic illegality and relief (which appears to primarily be damages). Having considered these arguments, the matter that concerns me is the fact that there is said to be an outstanding claim for damages for false imprisonment and breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not satisfied that any wider public law issues remain live.
e. In R (ZA) v Secretary of State [2020] EWCA Civ 146 Dingemans LJ held that; The overriding objective requires that cases are allotted an appropriate share of the court’s resources, see CPR Part 1.1(2)(e). Parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective, see CPR Part 1.3. Therefore, once the appellant had been released from detention both parties should have addressed their minds to the issue of whether the claim should have been transferred either to the Queen’s Bench Division or the County Court [72]
f. As far as I can see neither party has addressed their minds to the principles in ZA despite the fact that the Claimants are not detained and so are essentially seeking relief for historic illegality.
g. Transfer would appear to particularly appropriate where there are factual disputes about the Claimants’ treatment and where the Claimants seek extensive disclosure as they do in this case.
h. The parties should make submissions regarding the principles in ZA and whether transfer to the County Court is appropriate. Such submissions should address why ZA was not raised earlier.
(4) Further matters: In light of the fact that it appears that all that is outstanding is a damages claim, I can see no basis for ordering interim relief or expedition. I understand that the Claimants have a need for money. However, that is often the case when damages are sought