Tugce Orhan -v- Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (reporting restrictions order)
Case number: AC-2026-LON-003090
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
13 July 2026
Before:
The Hon. Mrs Justice Eady DBE
Between:
The King
on the application of
Tugce Orhan
(Claimant)
-v-
Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
(Defendant)
Order
Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service, Summary Grounds of Resistance and Opposition to Interim Relief
ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
- Permission to apply for judicial review:
(a) Permission is granted on grounds 1-3.
(b) Permission is refused on ground 4.
- Expedition: The hearing of the claim is expedited. The hearing is to be listed no later than 30 October 2026.
- Contempt of Court:
(a) Upon the application of the Defendant, pursuant to section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981, the reporting of these proceedings is postponed pending the return of the last verdict/s in the proceedings before the Crown Court sitting at Southwark in R v Masterton and ors;
(b) The Defendant must serve of this Order on: (i) the relevant legal representatives in the proceedings in R v Masterton and ors; (ii) the Press Association (Alerts.Service@pamediagroup.com) and the Financial Times;
(c) Liberty to apply, on the giving of at least 48 hours’ written notice to the parties, to anyone affected by this provision.
- Application for interim relief: the Claimant’s application for interim relief is refused.
- Case Management Directions:
(a) The Defendant must, within 14 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 14 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard- copy versions of the hearing bundle.
(e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
(g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 5 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.
(i) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 5 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for the substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 14 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.
(j) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.
OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS
(1) As the Defendant has acknowledged, grounds 1-3 raise arguable points of challenge on which permission should be granted, and the nature of this claim is such that it warrants expedition.
(2) In relation to ground 4, the Claimant has an alternative remedy, namely application to the Magistrates’ Court to vary her bail conditions. The Claimant argues this is not a suitable alternative remedy as it presupposes subsisting bail. I do not, however, consider that the Claimant would be unable to make the relevant application, pursuant to section 47(1)(E) PACE, without prejudice to her claim within these proceedings for a declaration that the applicable bail period was never validly extended.
(3) Given the view I have formed regarding ground 4, I am not persuaded that the Claimant’s application for interim relief in these proceedings should be allowed (this does not, of course, prevent the Claimant making further application to the Magistrates’ Court). More generally, while accepting there is a serious issue to be tried regarding whether bail remains in force, and this is not a case where damages would be an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo pending determination of the claim, which is to take place on an expedited basis. If I had any doubt in this regard, I would further accept that there is a strong public interest in preventing a suspect in a serious criminal investigation from leaving the jurisdiction (something that I cannot see could be properly secured by the Claimant’s proposed undertakings).
(4) In the light of the on-going criminal proceedings, the Defendant has requested that an Order be made under section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 for the reporting of these proceedings to be postponed pending the determination of the proceedings before the Crown Court sitting at Southwark in R v Masterton and ors. There are obvious reasons for such an Order to be made to ensure that neither the Claimant nor any other party is prejudiced in advancing their case. I have, however, made provision for liberty to apply in this regard, which extends to all those who are affected by the Order.
Signed: MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
Date: 13 July 2026