CA-2024-001383-B - [2025] EWCA Civ 1065

I accept Mr Gajjar’s characterisation of his client as an individual falling outside the ordinary class of persons to whom litigation and any ensuing publicity about it would be likely to bring about a degree of mental discomfort which would be an acceptable price to pay for open justice. She is seriously mentally unwell. Her condition is chronic and incurable. She has lacked the capacity to look after her own financial affairs and to litigate for some years, and although the resumption of medication appears to have helped to overcome some of the more disturbing features of her illness in early 2023, the Consultant Psychologist who had the advantage of treating her from December 2019 to March 2021 has expressed a professional view that lifting the anonymity order would present a serious risk to her psychological stability. That is not generic evidence, it is focused, it makes sense, and in my view it is compelling.

Each case turns upon its own facts and in this case I am persuaded by Mr Gajjar that the evidence of the serious harm that SA would be likely to suffer if the order were to be lifted at this juncture outweighs the very strong public interest in allowing ANL to identify her. Whilst it is possible for someone reading the most recent judgment to work out who SA is by putting certain pieces of information together, I am not persuaded that this renders the order worthless or unworkable or that it places the press at an unfair disadvantage. I would therefore refuse ANL’s application to lift the anonymity order made in this court, and therefore the orders made by the UT and FtT must also remain in force.

As for the application for the release of documents, as Mr Gajjar has accepted, ANL is entitled to see the skeleton arguments filed by the parties in this Court and in the FtT, subject to redactions reflecting the substance of the order. For some reason, ANL has not sought a copy of the Secretary of State’s skeleton argument or grounds of appeal against the FtT decision, but in principle they would also be documents to which ANL is entitled subject to appropriate redaction. The application for an unredacted version of the FtT judgment is refused, consistently with the decision that the anonymity order should remain in force for the time being.

I am not persuaded that ANL, as a non-party, is entitled to disclosure of any evidence filed by SA in support of her appeal to the FtT against the revocation order. It is unnecessary for journalists to have access to that evidence in order to have a full and fair understanding of the issues involved in the appeal or of the case being advanced by the parties to that appeal. The decision of the FtT is lengthy and detailed, and sufficiently describes the evidence that it has taken into account in making its various findings. The principle of open justice is satisfied by ANL having redacted copies of the FtT’s decision and of the skeleton arguments that they have requested. For those reasons, I would refuse this aspect of ANL’s application also.

I agree.

I also agree.