XZ -v- Frimley Integrated Care Board (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-003437

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

30 November 2023


Anneli Howard KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)


The King on the application of


Frimley Integrated Care Board


On an application for judicial review and an application by way of “Other applications (non-urgent)” in Section 9 of Form N461
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and its applications for anonymity, expedition and directions for a rolled up hearing



  1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted and neither the names of the Claimant nor her children shall be referred to.
  2. Pursuant to CPR r.39(2)(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name of her the claimant and her children or any details leading to their identification. There shall be substituted for all purposes in this claim, in place of reference to the Claimant and her children by name, and whether orally or in writing, referenced to the letters “XZ”, “GZ, “HZ”, “JZ” and “KZ” respectively.
  3. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymized”. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of the pleadings, a Judgment or Order from the court records only if the pleadings, Judgement or Order has been anonymised such that the Claimant and her children are referred to as “XZ”, “GZ, “HZ”, “JZ” and “KZ” respectively in those documents and any address has been removed.
  4. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identity creation of the Claimant and her children. In particular, disclosure of the Claimant and her children’s names or address is prohibited.


  1. The application for expedition and acceleration of the deadline for the Defendant to file its AOS and SGRs and the listing of an urgent rolled up hearing is refused.
  2. Consideration of permission and other directions is deferred until after service of the AOS and SGRs in the normal course.


  1. Costs in the case
  2. Liberty to Apply


(1) The Claimant challenges a purported decision by the ICB that the Claimant’s daughter, HZ, does not qualify for continuing care on the basis that it has unlawfully departed from the applicable policy guidance and/or has failed to provide rational reasons for its decision.
(2) The application for expedition is refused. The Court is always alive to considerations of urgency but, in this case, the Claimant has not submitted Form N463 or set out any case for urgency. The claim was issued on 20 November 2023, challenging a decision taken in September 2023, which does not suggest that there is exceptional urgency. The Claimant’s representatives seek to interpose a Judge, to look at a “non-urgent” application, at some stage after 7 days from filing the Claim, but before 14 days. The Judge is then asked to determine whether to abridge time for the AOS (to 14 days rather than 21 days) and list an urgent rolled-up hearing at the start of December 2023.
(3) This practice, which has become prevalent, is an unjustifiable and unrealistic approach to judicial resources. All for the purpose of a – sudden – shortening of a deadline, by 7 days. This application circumvents the normal process where a single Judge should be reading the papers and dealing with all the permission-stage issues, including expedition and case management directions at once, on a properly informed basis, after the AOS deadline.
(4) I am satisfied that the identification of the Claimant and her children warrant anonymity on grounds of protecting personal sensitive information. I am granting anonymity, now, because this is the Court’s first Order, and it would otherwise be available from the court files. I am satisfied that there is a CPR 39.2(4) necessity, but anonymity can be revisited if anyone wishes to raise any point or concern.