Social Work England -v- JS (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LDS-000146

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

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND AN INTERIM ORDER UNDER PARAGRAPH 14(2) OF SCHEDULE 2 OF THE SOCIAL WORKERS REGULATIONS 2018 (AS AMENDED)

17 July 2025

Before:

HHJ Davis-White KC

Between:

Social Work England

-v-

JS

Order

UPON the Claimant’s application by application notice dated 09 July 2025 for orders (a) that the Part 8 Claim be held in private; (b) of anonymity in relation to JS and her children; (c) that any application for permission pursuant to CPR 5.4C(2) must be made on 14 rather than 3 days notice

AND UPON reading the documents lodged by the Claimant including without limitation the witness statement of Eleanor Poole dated 09 July 2025 in relation to the application for the Interim Order imposed on the Defendant Social Worker’s registration to be extended,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The application for anonymity is dismissed SAVE THAT to enable the application to be renewed on the papers with further evidence or an oral hearing without prejudicing any such application:
    (1) There shall be no publication of the names of the Defendant or her children and no publication of anything that might lead to their identification, the Defendant and her children are granted anonymity for the purposes of these proceedings and without prejudice to this sub-paragraph (1):
    (2) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings who seeks a copy of a document as mentioned in CPR 5.4C(1) may only do so if first it is edited so that the Defendant’s name wherever it appears is replaced with the cipher “JS” (the Cipher”) and the Defendant’s address is expunged;
    (3) On CE File and on any hearing list the case name shall refer to the Defendant by the Cipher and not their full name or surname;
    (4) If an application to renew the application for anonymity is made within 7 days of service of this Order on the Claimant, sub-paragraphs (1)-(3) shall continue until after judgment on any such application;
    (5) If no application to renew the application for anonymity is made within 7 days of service of this Order upon the Claimant, sub-paragraphs (1) –(3) shall thereupon be discharged without further order;
  2. The application that the Part 8 Claim be held in private is dismissed, without prejudice to the right to renew any such application at the start of the hearing;
  3. The application to extend the notice period for any application under CPR r5.4C is dismissed;
  4. There be no order as to costs;
  5. Any party who wishes to apply to vary, discharge or stay this Order must do so within 7 days of service of this Order upon them.
  6. Any other person may apply to set aside or vary this Order.

Reasons

  1. A hearing in private is exceptional, especially if the entire hearing is in private. If otherwise appropriate, other methods of retaining privacy/confidentiality should be explored first. The Judge hearing the Part 8 Claim will be best placed to consider whether privacy is appropriate and, if so, how it is best achieved.
  2. Anonymity is sought in relation to the children of the Defendant (and to protect their anonymity, in relation to the Defendant). That anonymity of the Defendant themself is parasitic upon and to ensure anonymity of the children is how the application is put and is indeed the basis of the order of Garnham J referred to. The judgment referred to recites the order but is not the judgment in relation to the making of the order.
  3. The children of the Defendant are now apparently all over the age of 18. As such they are no longer children and the basis of the protection sought, that they are children under the age of 18, no longer exists. The contention that because they were under 18 when certain events took place and therefore anonymity should apply is not further explained or justified.
  4. However, limited anonymity is granted to preserve the position if a renewal application is made.
  5. No reason is given as to why an extension to the 3 day notice period required for applications (in this case under CPR r5.4C) to be given to the parties rather than reasons directed at why such application might be resisted. If SWE or any other party need longer time to deal with any such application that is a matter for them to raise and either agree with the person making the application or to apply to the court which will exercise its case management powers taking into account the reasons then provided by the relevant party and any submissions and evidence of the applicant. It is common when an application is first heard for the court to make directions, including seeing a timetable for evidence if appropriate. 14 days may or may not be appropriate. A blanket change to the usual rule at this stage is wholly inappropriate and it is wrong that the court is faced with an application that from previous experience of other cases seems to me to be made as a matter of routine whenever an anonymity order is sought. I have not marked the application as TWM at this stage because I may be that further submissions may affect the position.

Signed HHJ Davis-White KC
Dated 17th July 2025