The King on the application of GEA-v-Buckinghamshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderOrder

Claim No: AC-2025-LON-003492

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

16 February 2026

Before:
HHJ Marquand

Between:
The King on the application of GEA
-v-
Buckinghamshire Council

On an application by the Defendant for an anonymity order for the Claimant to avoid identification of his adult daughter

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Defendant and the Claimant

ORDER BY HHJ Marquand (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. 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 Claimant’s name and that of his daughter 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 GEA and his
daughter as GMD.

(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):

Form JR6. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version January 2025.

(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 Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the 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.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant’s
daughter has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Identification of the Claimant will
result in identification of this daughter. There are accordingly compelling reasons for
the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Signed: HHJ Marquand Date: 16 February 2026