ALK -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003398

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

3 March 2025

Before:

David Pittaway KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
ALK

-v-

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the First Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

Order

ORDER BY DAVID PITTAWAY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. Anonymity:

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

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 ALK.

(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.

  1. Extension of Time

(a) The Claimant’s application for an extension of time to 24 October 2024 in which to file the Statement of Facts and Grounds is granted.

(b) The First Defendant’s consequential application for an extension of time in which to have filed an Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence to the 18 November2024 is granted.

  1. Interim Relief

(a) The application for interim relief is dismissed.

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review:

(a) Permission is granted and the Claimant’s application for judicial review is transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for determination of his age

  1. Costs:

(a) Costs in the case.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a vulnerable child/adult who has a reasonable expectation to privacy of the personal a medical and other information which will be considered in this case.
(2) Extension of Time: I am satisfied that there are sufficient reasons given by both the Claimant and the First Defendant to permit me to make the orders requested. After considering the reasons for the delay in filing the Statement of Facts and Grounds, I consider the appropriate order costs in the case.
(3) Interim Relief: In my view, the application served on 22 October 2024 is now stale. Although I can see that the Claimant has spent periods of time living in foster care and in hotels, I do not have any up to date information on his present accommodation. On his own case he is now nearly 17 years old. Whilst I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried, on the information available, I do not consider that the balance of convenience lies in granting interim relief at this stage. It is, of course, open to the Claimant to make a further application if the issue of his current accommodation is a cause for concern.
(4) Permission: Having considered the matters set out in the Claimant’s SFG and the Defendant’s response in the SGD, I am not satisfied that this is a case where I am able to say that the factual case, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing, R(FZ) v London Borough of Croydon [2011] EWCA Civ 59 at §6 considered. I have made no specific directions as to expert evidence, which will be considered by the Upper Tribunal.