SM -v- London Borough of Hillingdon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/1224/2022

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

Antony Dunne sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

The Queen on the application of
London Borough of Hillingdon

On an application by the claimant for anonymity dated  and the accompanying bundle lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by Antony Dunne sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “SM”. Pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or her children or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her children without the leave of the court.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D a person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with the direction above.
  3. The Court file shall be clearly noted with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 8th July 2022 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
  4. Any person has liberty on 3 days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge the anonymity order set out above.


  1. The anonymity order is made under CPR 39.2 preventing the publication / reporting of the names or other identifying information of the Claimant and her children. The Claimant was allocated accommodation by the Defendant because of the risk to her and her family resulting from her ex-partner’s domestic violence towards her and his knowledge of her place of residence. Should the Claimant’s ex-partner come to know the London Borough in which she resides this would assist the Claimant’s ex-partner in identifying her address, which may prompt further abuse.
  2. The subject matter of this case is sensitive in that it relates to a history of domestic abuse suffered by the Claimant.
  3. The application therefore engages the Claimant’s Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life
  4. Having considered the Claimant’s Article 8 rights, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, as well as the open justice principle, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the Claimant’s interests; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of her identity to justify interfering with the Claimant’s Article 8 rights.