XB -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

THIS ORDER SUPERSEDES THE ORDER SERVED AND SEALED ON 1 MAY 2026 AT 14:31

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003253

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

1 May 2026

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge Eleanor Grey KC,
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
XB

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

By Upper Tribunal Judge Eleanor Grey KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

THIS ORDER SUPERSEDES THE ORDER SERVED AND SEALED ON 1 MAY 2026 AT 14:31

UPON hearing counsel for the Defendant, and the Claimant in person, at the hearing of the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review listed to be heard on 17 March 2026;

AND UPON the Defendant applying on 17 March 2026 for permission to file and serve an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and accompanying bundle of documents (dated 17 March 2026 and filed shortly before the hearing), together with an application for an extension of time for such service;

AND UPON the Court observing, that if an application to permit the Acknowledgement of Service and associated Summary Grounds of Defence to be relied upon was to be allowed, the Claimant should be allowed a proper period of time to consider such material, i.e., an adjournment should the Claimant request it;

AND UPON the Claimant, following the consideration of this issue over the shot adjournment:

i) Inviting the Court to adjourn the hearing of the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, in the light of the late service of the Acknowledgment of Service and the Court’s indication that it would be minded to grant such an application, if requested; but

ii) Stating that he reserved all his rights to rely on any procedural deficiencies in the Defendant’s conduct in these proceedings;

iii) Informing the Court that HHJ Sapnara of the Central Family Court had confirmed in open hearing to the Claimant that the Government Legal Department had contacted her directly, and that the Claimant had sought clarification from the Defendant as to the reasons for and content of those communications but had received no response;

AND UPON THE PARTIES AGREEING:

(i) That the Claimant’s son and his son’s mother should be identified as interested parties;

(ii) That the Claimant’s son, as a minor, should be granted anonymity in these proceedings;

AND UPON THE COURT being supplied thereafter (by means of an email dated 16 April 2026 from the Claimant) with a copy of a non-molestation Order restricting the contact between the Claimant and the Interested Party;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Anonymity

  1. The application for anonymity is granted:

a. The identities and addresses of the Claimant’s son (who is to be known as AB) and his mother (who is to be known as AA) must not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court.

b. The Claimant’s son shall be referred to as AB. AB’s mother shall be referred to as AA. Nothing shall be published which may reveal the names, ages, or addresses of AA or AB, or any other details liable to lead to their identification.

c. Pending further consideration of this issue at the adjourned hearing of the permission application or further Order, the Claimant also shall be referred to as “XB”, to avoid the risk of the identification of AB and/or AA taking place as a consequence of any publication of this Order.

  1. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of AA or AB or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of AB in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  2. The parties must within 7 days of service of this Order, file a redacted copy of any statement of case or defence filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the people referred to in paragraph 1. If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of AA or AB, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time.
  3. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the AA or AB has been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
  4. These restrictions will continue until further order, but they may be reviewed by the Court on application by any person who wishes to set aside or vary the order for anonymity. Any request for reconsideration must be made in writing on not less than 3 working days’ written notice to the parties and stating reasons in support.

Adjournment and directions

  1. The hearing of the application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned, to be relisted not before 19 June 2026.
  2. The Defendant has permission to file and serve the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence dated 17 March 2026, and the bundle of documents filed with the acknowledgment of service. Time is extended to permit this.
  3. AA shall be included as an interested party.
  4. Within 7 days of the date that this order is served on the Claimant, the Claimant must send to AA, via the email address dms.legal2024@gmail.com:

a. A sealed copy of this order.

b. A copy of the order of 29 September 2025 of David Pievsky KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

c. The Claim form and other documents filed by the Claimant.

d. A copy of the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence dated 17 March 2026, and the bundle of bundle of documents filed with the Acknowledgment of Service.

  1. The Claimant shall file and serve on the Defendant a certificate of service in form N215 certifying that and how paragraph 9 of this order has been complied with within 10 days of the date this order is served.
  2. At the adjourned hearing of the permission application, the Claimant should make an application (supported by evidence) under CPR 6.15, for the supply of the documents pursuant to paragraph 9 to be deemed to be good service by an alternative means on the Interested Party.
  3. Any further communication by the parties with the Interested Party in relation to these proceedings by the parties shall be via the email address dms.legal2024@gmail.com, until judgment or further order of the Court.
  4. The Claimant may, if so advised, file an application to amend the Claim form and Statement of Facts and Grounds. Any such application must be filed and served on the parties within 21 days of the date this Order is sealed and served.
  5. The Defendant shall, if so advised, file a skeleton argument addressing any proposed amended Statement of Facts and Grounds within 21 days of service of the application mentioned at paragraph 13 of this order, without the need to amend the Summary Grounds of Defence.
  6. At the hearing of the adjourned application for permission to apply for judicial review the Court will decide whether to grant any application for permission to amend the Claim form and Statement of Facts and Grounds made in accordance with paragraph 13 of this order, and will then proceed to consider whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review.
  1. Costs reserved.

Further Reasons

In the light of the communications received by me on 16 April 2026 (by which I was forwarded a series of email communications from or between the parties, including (i) copies of draft Orders from both parties that had not been agreed; and (ii) a copy of a Non-Molestation Order addressed to the Claimant dated 16 February 2026); and the further emails from the Claimant dated 17 April 2026 (sent to me on 20 April 2026 and including an updated draft Order on behalf of the Claimant) and 30 April 2026 (setting out concerns about delay), I add these observations to the reasoning from the hearing on 17 March 2026.

(1) I have considered the draft Orders filed by both parties and issued the Order which I consider reflects the decisions and directions made on 17 March 2026.

(2) I have not included a provision requiring the Defendant to explain any contact with the Family Court, in respect of the Claimant’s allegation that the Government Legal Department had been in communication with HHJ Sapnara of the Central Family Court. At the hearing on 17 March 2026, I observed that the Defendant might wish to clarify whether any contact had been made and if so, why. I was not prepared to include provisions to that effect in the Order.
It is a matter for the parties to explain (if so minded) if any contact has been, and also the relevance of this issue to the matters raised by this renewed permission application.

(3) The Non-Molestation Order supplied to me on 16 April 2026 raises the question of how the Interested Party should be served with the proceedings. It includes a nominated email address, which exists for the protection of the Interested Party. Service by email can only be effected if a party has indicated that it accepts service by this means (Practice Direction 6A) and this has not occurred. Under CPR 6.15, the Court may allow service by an alternative means (and that power allows the retrospective validation of steps already taken). But there should be an application, supported by evidence. In the circumstances, I have directed that the proceedings should be sent by email to the Interested Party (and that step confirmed by use of the N215, which is the most appropriate document in the circumstances). However, an application must be made to allow such communication to stand as good service by the Claimant to the Court (see paragraph 11 above). The application must be verified by evidence, including verification of the non-molestation order. The parties (including the Interested Party if so advised) can make any submissions that are appropriate on such an application.

(4) On 17 March 2026, I reserved costs. In practical terms, this means that the Claimant may apply for the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment of the hearing on 17 March: (i) at the renewed application hearing, if his application for judicial review is dismissed; or (ii) if permission is granted, at the conclusion of the proceedings, as part of any costs applications made at that stage.

(5) The timetable for any renewed hearing reflects the provisions of paras 13 and 14, above.

(6) The parties are reminded of their obligations to co-operate with eachother in fulfilling the overriding objective (CPR 1.1 and 1.3). This includes co-operation in the task of agreeing the terms of a Directions order following a hearing.

Addendum, 5.5.26: An issue has been raised (by the Judicial Office website team) as to whether inclusion of the Claimant’s name in the title of this Order, coupled with its publication, may be sufficient to enable identification of AB and/or AA. The Order made reflected the application(s) of the parties, but I accept that it may raise that possibility if the Claimant’s name is published. Accordingly, since the anonymity provisions originally made were intended to ensure anonymity for AB, but may not achieve it, I have amended the Order of 1 May to achieve the intended result, under CPR 40.12. The parties (or another person affected) may apply as set out at paragraph 5 for any variation to this Amended Order, and its necessity should in any event be considered at the adjourned hearing.

ELEANOR GREY KC

1 May 2026

By the Court

Amended on 5 May 2026