United Grand Lodge of England and others -v- Metropolitan Police

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionOrder

Claim Number: AC-2025-LON-004716

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

29 January 2026

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Chamberlain

Between:

The King on the application of:

(1) UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND
(an unincorporated association, acting by ADRIAN MARSH)

(2) THE ORDER OF WOMEN FREEMASONS
(an unincorporated association, acting by JEAN MICHELE KNIGHT)

(3) HFAF LIMITED (o/a THE HONOURABLE FRATERNITY OF ANCIENT
FREEMASONS)

(4) FSK

(5) IPS

-v-

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Order

UPON the application dated 23 January 2026 (‘the Application’) of ‘IPS’ (‘the Applicant’) to be added as a Claimant in this claim and as an applicant in the First to Fourth Claimants’ application for interim relief dated 24 December 2025;

AND UPON the Defendant having consented to the Applicant being added as proposed;

AND UPON the Defendant having consented to the Claimants’ amendment of their Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds to reflect the joinder of the Applicant in the terms set out in the documents served on the Defendant on 23 January 2026;

AND UPON the Claimants having consented to the Defendant being permitted to file further evidence in response to the application for interim relief in so far as it concerns the Applicant;

AND UPON the Claimants having consented an extension of time for the Defendant to file his Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence;

AND UPON the order of Mr Justice Chamberlain of 14 January 2026 setting directions leading to a hearing of the Claimants’ applications for interim relief and for permission to apply for judicial review, paragraph 3 of which gave the parties liberty to apply to amend those directions;

AND UPON the Court having listed a hearing of those applications on 11 February 2026 (‘the Hearing’);

AND UPON the parties having agreed (subject to the approval of the Court) to revised directions leading to the Hearing;

AND UPON the Applicant’s application (supported by his witness statement and the second witness statement of his solicitor, Ms Crean) for a withholding order, reporting restrictions and restrictions on non-party access to documents;

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

  1. Additional party: The Applicant is added as a Fifth Claimant in these proceedings and as an applicant for interim relief.
  2. Directions: The directions in Mr Justice Chamberlain’s Order of 14 January 2026 are varied as follows:
    (a) The Defendant must file and serve any Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence by 12 noon on Thursday, 29 January 2026.
    (b) The Defendant must file and serve any evidence in response to the application for interim relief in so far as it relates to the Applicant by 12 noon on Thursday, 29 January 2026.
    (c) The Claimants must file and serve any Reply to the Summary Grounds of Defence by 4pm on Wednesday, 4 February 2026.
    (d) The Claimants must by 4pm on Wednesday 4 February 2026 file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
    (iii) the court’s orders; and
    (iv) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
    (e) The Claimants must file and serve a skeleton argument for the Hearing, limited to 10 pages, by 4pm on Wednesday, 4 February 2026.
    (f) The Defendant must file and serve a skeleton argument for the Hearing, limited to 10 pages, by 4pm on Monday, 9 February 2026.
    (g) The Claimants must file and serve an agreed electronic bundle of authorities in accordance with the requirement set out in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide by 10am on Tuesday, 10 February 2026.
  3. Anonymity, restricted access to court documents and restricted reporting
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, the name and address of the Applicant (by this Order, the Fifth Claimant) is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    (b) There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings whether orally or in writing, in place of references to the Applicant by name, reference to the cipher ‘IPS’.
    (c) The Applicant has permission to give his solicitors address instead of his own address.
    (d) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4), a non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any statement of case or any other document filed with the Court, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with paragraph 3(a)-(c) of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    (e) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication in any report of these proceedings of the names of the Fourth Claimant or the Applicant (by this Order, the Fifth Claimant) or of anything likely to lead to their identification.
  4. Publicity: Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5), a copy of this Order is to be published on the Judiciary Website.
  5. Variation or discharge: Anyone affected by paragraph 3 of this Order may apply to vary or discharge the restrictions imposed by that paragraph. Any such application must be on notice of the Applicant, with such notice being given through the Applicant’s solicitors, by post at VWV, 24 King William Street, London EC4R 9AT or by email to all of the following addresses: rcrean@vwv.co.uk/ hland@vwv.co.uk/ gcampbell@vwv.co.uk
  6. Costs: The costs of this application are reserved.

Reasons

REASONS
(1) This Order reflects the substance of the consent order filed by the parties, with minor amendments.

(2) Although my Order of 2 January 2026 did not impose reporting restrictions under s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in respect of the Fourth Claimant, such an order is necessary in his case and in the case of the Applicant in order to maintain the status quo at least until the hearing on 11 February 2026. I am satisfied that this limited and temporary interference with freedom of expression is justified at this early stage having regard to s. 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the principles enunciated in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] AC 1 253. At that hearing it will be necessary to consider further whether to continue in force all or some of the restrictions in my Order of 2 January 2026 and in paragraph 3 of this Order.