APY -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000174

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

19 February 2025

Before:

Matthew Butt KC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
APY

-v-

London Borough of Hounslow

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and Defendant

ORDER by Matthew Butt KC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

  1. The application for a stay is refused.
  2. Time for acknowledging service shall not run unless and until grounds of claim and any evidence relied upon have been served upon the Defendant.
  3. The Claimant is to be known as APY in connection with this claim. In the event, that a non-party makes an application to the Court for permission to access the documents on the Court file, the parties will be given 7 days’ notice before any such application is considered by the Court.
  4. To the extent that such an order is necessary permission is granted under CPR r.21.2(3) for the claim to be issued without a litigation friend

Observations

  1. This claim concerns an age assessment of the Claimant made by the Defendant on 16 October 2024.
  2. The Claimant’s solicitors were instructed on 06 January 2025 having been contacted by the referring NGO on 18 December 2024.
  3. A claim form was filed and issued for service on 17 January 2025.
  4. The Claimant seeks (i) an anonymity order (ii) permission to issue the claim without a litigation friend (iii) an 8 week stay on proceedings to allow pre-action correspondence to take place and for service of summary facts and grounds and any evidence in support.
  5. Whilst I have sympathy with the Claimant’s solicitors position given the chronology set out above, I do not consider that the application for a stay is an efficient means of dealing with the delay or non-compliance with the pre-action protocol. The permission judge will need to determine whether this claim has been brought promptly and in any event within three months. This will involve consideration of all relevant circumstances including the content of the Acknowledgment of Service.
  6. I am not persuaded based upon the claim form and witness statement of Ms Collins that I should issue a stay as requested. The court expects the pre action protocol to be adhered to within the applicable limitation period. This is defeated if a protective claim is issued and a stay applied for in the manner the Claimant has attempted. No useful purpose has been served by the course taken.
  7. The pre-action protocol should have been adhered to. It would then have been for the Claimant to have shown good reason within the claim (should this have still been necessary) as to why time should be extended.
  8. This is a matter which should therefore be considered by the judge who decides permission. The Claimant can file an appropriate application to amend his claim by the addition of his SFG or for these to be served out of time and to rely upon evidence as his sees appropriate. This can be considered by the permission judge along with the question of promptness / limitation.
  9. Time for acknowledging service shall not run until grounds of claim and any evidence relied upon (which should include an application for permission to amend / rely) have been served.
  10. I make an order granting anonymity as the Claimant is an asylum seeker in order to protect his Convention rights.
  11. To the extent that such an order is necessary (age being in dispute) I grant permission under CPR r.21.2(3) for the claim to be issued without a litigation friend. This should be rectified by 13 March 2025.