Social Work England -v- LAM (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LDS-000109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                                                                
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AT LEEDS

27 MAY 2026

BEFORE:

HER HONOUR JUDGE CLAIRE JACKSON
SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

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)

Between:

Social Work England

-v-

LAM

Order

UPON the Claimant’s application dated 21 May 2026

AND UPON reading those documents recorded on the Court file as having been read, including the N244 and continuation sheet and the witness statement of Eleanor Arari (nee Poole) (Dated 11 May 2026) 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 the hearing to be heard in private is refused.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) there is to be no disclosure of the Social Worker and their Child’s identity.
    a) The name of the Defendant and their Child is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;
    b) The Defendant is to be to be referred to orally and in writing using a cipher LAM and their child is to be referred to as LNK;
    c) Pursuant to s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Defendant or their child or any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Defendant or their child in any report or otherwise in connection with these proceedings;
    d) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4)(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already file serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Defendant or their child; and (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Defendant or their child, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version.
    e) Any judgment in this case should follow the Practice Guidance issued by the President of the Family Division in December 2018 on the avoidance of the identification of children in judgments.
  3. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this privacy / anonymity order must make an application, served on each party.
  4. There is no order as to costs.