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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/2331/2023
AC-2023-LON-001941

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

5 December 2023

Before:

Mr Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
AQS

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by Mr Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

  1. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to his identification. If referred to, he shall only be referred to as ‘AQS’;
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C(4)(c) 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 anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only by the letters ‘AQS’; and (b) any reference to his name has been deleted from those documents.
  3. The Claim shall be transferred to the Central London County Court.
  4. Costs reserved.

Reasons

Anonymity

  1. No application has been made for anonymity. However, given the status of the Claimant as an asylum seeker, where the Claim refers to the health of the Claimant and where there is no public interest in identification, it is appropriate to make an anonymity order at this stage. If anonymity is not appropriate, this order may be varied in due course.

Transfer to the County Court

  1. Through the Claim, the Claimant sought an order that he be provided with suitable s.95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 accommodation and support and related relief.
  2. The Claimant has been placed in s.95 catered Initial Accommodation, and is currently receiving s.95 support. In the circumstances, Ground 3 of the Claimant’s Grounds for Judicial Review has become academic, and the only remaining issues to be determined are those related to the lawfulness of the Defendant’s alleged delay in providing such accommodation and support, damages and costs.
  3. The extant matters may more appropriately be considered by a Judge of the County Court, in a damages claim, pursuant to, or by analogy with the circumstances in, the Court of Appeal decision of ZA (Pakistan) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 146; see [71]-[73], per Dingemans LJ. I therefore transfer the Claim to the Central London County Court.