ARO -v- The London Borough of Islington (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000839

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

24 April 2024


Neil Cameron KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The King on the application of
ARO (by their Litigation Friend)


The London Borough of Islington


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant, and the Claimant’s Reply.

ORDER by Neil Cameron KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, the identity of the Claimant shall not be directly or indirectly disclosed and these proceedings shall be known as ‘R(ARO) (by their litigation friend, Erinç Argün Kayım) v London Borough of Islington’.
  2. The Claimant is permitted to file a Reply.
  3. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  4. The claim is transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
  5. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is granted. The Defendant shall treat the Claimant as a child and provide him with accommodation and support under sections 17 and 20 Children Act 1989 until the claim is determined or until further order.
  6. The parties shall have liberty to apply to vary or set aside the order set out at paragraph [5] above on two working days’ notice to the other parties.


  1. The Defendant had adopted a policy on how it would undertake age assessments. That policy states that where a welfare check was made and it was determined that an assessment of age is needed, a brief enquiry as to age assessment will be required. The policy states that the assessment should be ‘Merton compliant’ by way of ensuring 2 trained and qualified social workers are present alongside an appropriate adult and interpreter, and that the assessment cannot proceed if any of those parties are not present. A public authority which adopts a policy on how it will exercise discretionary powers can be expected to follow that policy unless there are sufficient reasons to depart from it (R (oao HAM) v. LB of Brent [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin) at paragraph 15). Although there is uncertainty as to whether or not the Defendant proceeded to the ‘brief enquiry’ stage, it is arguable that they failed to apply their own policy.
  2. As the case is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal I have not made case management directions. The Upper Tribunal will be in a position to make such directions as it sees fit.
  3. There is a serious issue to be tried. If the Claimant’s claimed age is correct, the Defendant is under a duty to accommodate him and to provide him with care and support. In those circumstances damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting interim relief.