XYZ -v- City, University of London (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/4153/2022

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

21 November 2022

Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley

The King on the application of XYZ
City, University of London

On applications by the Claimant dated 14 November 2022 for anonymity, expedition and a rolled-up hearing
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant, including the Claimant’s further application and submissions of 16 November 2022 in support of the same applications

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley

  1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “XYZ”, and pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or the ‘Reporting student’ without the leave of the court.
  2. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge this order.
  3. The Claimant is permitted to rely on the further submissions filed with his application of 16 November 2022
  4. The Claimant’s application for expedition and a rolled-up hearing is refused.


  1. The Claimant seeks an anonymity order on the grounds that the case concerns his challenge to a finding made against him by the Defendant of a serious sexual assault. This application is not opposed by the Defendant. Given the serious and contested nature of this allegation, I consider that non-disclosure of his identity is necessary to protect his interests and those of the Reporting Student who made the allegation against him and for the proper administration of justice.
  2. I have considered the evidence provided by the Claimant, including the recent psychiatric evidence, but I do not consider that this evidence provides sufficient grounds to justify an order for expedition at this stage so as shorten the time for service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service to only 1 week. All judicial review claims require prompt determination and the procedures set out in CPR 54 are designed to promote fair and prompt disposal of all cases. That said, the Defendant should ensure that they comply with the 21 day deadline.
  3. I also do not consider that a rolled-up hearing is appropriate when the Defendant has raised an argument about an adequate alternative remedy which will have to be considered at the permission stage.
  4. Further consideration of any requirements for expedition can be considered at the same time as permission.