June 23, 2026

ACX -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-000752

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 June 2026

Before:

Alan Bates,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
ACX
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY ALAN BATES,
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Anonymity and reporting restrictions:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and/or section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name, the names of her children, and the name of her sister, are all to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ”ACX”.

(b) Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant, her children, or her sister, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any of those persons, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(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, her children, or her sister;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, her children, or her sister, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; and

(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 the order set out in this paragraph must make an application, served on each party.

Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,085.88.
Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 3 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 3 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 3 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 3 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 3 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.

5. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration of his application for permission to apply for judicial review at an oral hearing (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge.

(b) Within 14 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 Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) 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.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 12 pages (12 point font, 1.5 lines spacing);

(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.

(e) At least 4 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 (12 point font, 1.5 lines spacing).

(f) 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.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity and reporting restrictions: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and may have an arguable case that she, or members of her family, could be placed at risk outside the United Kingdom if the Claimant’s identity were made public. Further, the issues in the claim partly relate to the adequacy of asylum support accommodation for the children, who are both minors. Further, the issues in the claim partly relate to the circumstances of the Claimant’s sister, who is a minor child in the care of a local authority and living in a residential home. Taking all these matters together, I am satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to grant anonymity and reporting restrictions, notwithstanding that this involves a derogation from the principle of open justice and from Article 10 of the Convention Rights in the Schedule to the Human Rights Act 1998.

(2) Permission to apply for judicial review: I have refused permission to apply for judicial review as none of the Claimant’s grounds of challenge has a realistic prospect of success.

(3) The starting point is that the Defendant’s relevant statutory duty is to provide “adequate” accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be “destitute”. Such accommodation can be in any part of the UK and is intended to be temporary. The Defendant is entitled to bear in mind the extent to which accommodation in London and the South-East is in high demand and relatively costly.

(4) The principal grounds on which the Claimant was asserting that she needed accommodation specifically in the London area were, in my view, very weak:

(a) Although the Claimant suffers from low mood, this is not (per se) a strong basis for seeking to be re-accommodated back in the London area. Whilst I acknowledge that the Claimant’s loss of the support network she had started developing in the London area will have been upsetting and disruptive for her and her children, there is no evidence that she has mental health problems requiring specialist care of a kind available only in London. She can access mental health support services in the Manchester area (where she is now being accommodated).

(b) The elder of the Claimant’s two children (who was attending a nursery in the London area) is still very young. There is no evidence that adapting to attending
a new nursery school, in the Manchester area, would be unusually difficult for her.

(5) The strongest factor favouring London accommodation is potentially that the Claimant’s sister is a 16-year-old child living in residential care in East London and might be suffering significant relative detriment compared with the previous situation (i.e. when she was being visited by the Claimant, who was then being accommodated in the London area). However, the Defendant afforded the Claimant an opportunity to provide further information and evidence relating to the sister’s circumstances. The refusal letter expressly invited the Claimant to provide such information and evidence, for the Defendant then to take into account. In these circumstances, the Defendant cannot fairly be criticised either for failing to take the sister’s welfare into account, or for failing to make adequate inquiry into the sister’s circumstances and the degree of negative impact on the sister of not being regularly visited by the Claimant.

(6) The Claimant, instead of providing such material, has rushed to bring this judicial review claim. In my view, the Defendant is right that the judicial review claim is premature in that the Claimant has failed to exhaust the Defendant’s internal processes.

(7) Costs: As permission to apply for judicial review has been refused, the usual costs order is that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs of its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds. In my view, there is no good reason for making a different costs order in this case. The amount claimed by the Defendant is reasonable and proportionate. Enforcement of the costs order will be subject to the usual pre- condition that applies where, as in this case, the party against whom the costs order is made has the benefit of Legal Aid for the proceedings.

Signed: DHCJ Alan Bates
Date: 22 June 2026