XY -v- North Yorkshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LDS-000110

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

11 July 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Saffman

Between:

XY By her litigation friend ZA

-v-

North Yorkshire Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration 

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by His Honour Judge Saffman sitting in retirement as a Judge of the High Court: 

  1. Anonymity:
    a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    i) the Claimant’s name and the name of the litigation friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    ii) the Claimant and the litigation friend are to be referred to orally and in writing as “XY” and “ZA” respectively.
    b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or litigation friend or of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application within 7 days of service of this order. 

REASONS 

Anonymity:  

  1. The court is conscious of the principle that an anonymity order is exceptional because it is a fundamental precept that the administration of justice takes place in public. An anonymity order is a derogation from the principle of open justice. 
  2. The court is further conscious of the fact that an anonymity order ought not to be made merely because the parties do not oppose it.  
  3. In this case an anonymity order is appropriate because it is necessary to protect the interests of a protected party (CPR 39.2 (3))(d)) and it is necessary to extend the order to the litigation friend because failure to extend the order in this way would enable identification of the protected party.