Social Work England -v- MLN (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LDS-000188

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

3 August 2026

Before:

Her Honour Judge Kelly
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
Social Work England
(Claimant)

-v-

MLN
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant dated 29 July 2026 for anonymity and an order pursuant to CPR 5.4(1) to restrict non-party access to documents without the Court’s permission.

Following consideration of (i) the application notice and evidence in support; and (ii) the submissions of the Claimant filed with the application

And following consideration of the statement of Eleanor Arari dated 29 July 2026 in support of the application to extend the interim order

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE KELLY
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Anonymity and related orders

  1. The application for anonymity for the Defendant and their child, and consequential restrictions on the court file, is granted.
  2. Accordingly, under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4) (i) 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; and (ii) the Defendant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “MLN“ and their Child as “NVR”.
  3. Further, 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 of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Defendant or their child in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  4. 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 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.
  5. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(2), any application to obtain documents other than the claim form, judgment or order made by a non-party under CPR 5.4C, is to be made on at least 14 days’ notice to the parties. The parties shall be given the opportunity to respond to the application (including proposals for editing/redacting sensitive content). Any person has liberty to apply in writing on notice to the parties to abridge the time for notice.
  6. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  7. 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.
  8. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this anonymity order must make an application, served on each party.
  9. No order as to costs.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity has been granted because this case concerns the Defendant’s child, their private and confidential health diagnoses, and Family Court proceedings that were held in private. All these matters engage the private and family life of the Defendant and their child.
  2. There is not, in my judgment, sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings which identifies the Defendant and their child and/or the normally reportable details to justify any resulting curtailment of their rights to respect for their private and family life. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice that anonymity involves.
  3. The Claimant proposed using the Defendant’s initials as a cipher. Ciphers including the real initials of children are to be avoided: see p.3 of the Practice Guidance issued by the President of the Family Division in December 2018. Accordingly using the Defendant’s real initials might increase the risk of jigsaw identification of the child. On that basis random letters have been used for both ciphers.

Date: 3rd August 2026