AAA -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2023-LON-003599

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

26 February 2024


DAVID PITTAWAY KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The King on the application of


Westminster City Council


Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Interested party)


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant [and the Acknowledgement(s) of service filed by the Defendant and/or Interested Party]
ORDER by DAVID PITTAWAY KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

1. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court. The Claimant shall be referred to as “AAA” in these proceedings. Nothing shall be published which may reveal the name, age or address of the Claimant, or any other details liable to lead to his identification.

2. 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 Claimant has been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.

3. 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 14 days written notice to the parties and stating reasons in support.

4. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

5. The application shall be transferred to to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing as to his age in accordance with section 31A (3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.


1. In my view, Grounds 1 and 2 are reasonably arguable, namely that the Defendant’s decision dated 4 September 2023 was based on an insufficient enquiry, which should have led to a full Merton compliant assessment, R (A) v London Borough of Croydon and others [2009] UKSC 8 considered.

2. I do not consider, on the balance of convenience, that it would be appropriate for me to grant the interim relief requested, namely to accommodate and support the Claimant as a putative child pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989, pending determination of the claim, in circumstances where the Claimant has already resided in the UK for over two years.