ABA -v- Leicestershire County Council (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2025-LON-001018
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
23 May 2025
Before:
Dan Kolinsky KC
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Between:
The King
on the application of
ABA (anonymity granted)
-v-
Leicestershire County Council
Order
On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, permission to proceed with the judicial review claim and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and upon the Defendant having failed to serve an acknowledgment of service
ORDER BY DAN KOLINSKY KC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)
- Anonymity:
(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4):
(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ABA.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant 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 a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
- Adjournment of permission to a hearing:
(a) The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be determined after a hearing together with the application for interim relief.
(b) The permission hearing and application for interim relief is to be listed with a time estimate of 1.5 hours, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission together with the determination of the application for interim relief.
(c) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
(iv) this Order;
(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on (vi) Form 86B);
(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
(d) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.
(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve
(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
(f) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
(g) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.
3. Costs reserved.
REASONS
(1) Given the nature of this age assessment claim, there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) This is an age assessment judicial review with a claim for interim relief. The Claimant also seeks disclosure of the basis on which the Defendant decided that he was not a child.
(3) The Defendant has not acknowledged service or responded to the claim for disclosure or the claim for interim relief.
(4) In these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to adjourn the issue of permission and interim relief to an oral hearing. Issues to be determined at this hearing will include (a) what order (if any) should the Court make in respect of disclosure of the basis of the Defendant’s decision; (b) should permission be granted (having regard to the approach to precedent fact in age assessment cases) ; (c) should the matter be transferred to the Upper Tribunal; (d) is interim relief appropriate having regard to the requirement for a Claimant to establish a strong prima facie case for a mandatory order to be made (see the Judicial Review Guide at para 16.6.1)? Where does the balance of convenience lie in respect of such an order? At present the Court does not have sight of the Defendant’s position in respect of these issues. The Defendant is urged to indicate its position in respect of these issues promptly. It should do so by applying to file an acknowledgement of service out of time and/or by setting out its position in the skeleton argument directed above. If it contests interim relief and disclosure, it should consider filing evidence to explain its position to the Court.
Signed: Dan Kolinsky KC
Date: 23 May 2025