UEY -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and HUE (anonymity order)

Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

UT ref: UA-2025-000368-CSM

In the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber

From the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
SC314/23/01309
Leicester
Decision date: 9 July 2024

19 June 2026

Before:

Judith Butler,
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Between:

UEY
(Appellant)

-v-

(1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(2) HUE
(Respondents)

Anonymity order

NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

  1. It is ordered, under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant or second respondent in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of either of them.
  2. It is ordered that the appellant shall be known as UEY.
  3. It is ordered that the second respondent shall be known as HUE.
  4. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside.
  5. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

REASONS

  1. This anonymity order is made at the Judge’s own motion.
  2. The evidence and information in this case includes information about the appellant and the second respondent and their children together as well as wider domestic matters between the two parties. I am satisfied on the basis of the material before me that the interests of the children would be significantly harmed if anonymity were not granted.
  3. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by the final decision in this case being published online with the names of the appellant and second respondent anonymised.
  4. I have considered whether there is any less restrictive measure that would still adequately protect the identified interests, but I am satisfied there is not, because they might interfere with how the reasoning in the decision is expressed. Anonymising the identity of the appellant does not interfere with how the reasoning is expressed.
  5. No party has applied for an order but the appellant lodged their case at a time when social security decisions were informally anonymised. Given the matters set out above, I consider it appropriate to formalise that practice in this case without requiring an application for anonymity.
  6. The letters ‘UEY’ and ‘HUE’ have been chosen randomly and do not relate to the name of the appellant or second respondent.

Judith Butler
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Authorised for issue: 19 June 2026