AYX -v- London Borough of Camden (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001113

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

16 May 2025

Before:

Clare Padley sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
AYX

-v-

London Borough of Camden

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission, anonymity and interim relief

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

ORDER BY CLARE PADLEY (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 AYX.
    (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.
  2. Litigation Friend: The Claimant is permitted to conduct these proceedings without a litigation friend.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review:
    (a) No decision has been reached on permission.
    (b) Within 7 days of service of this order, the Claimant must provide evidence that the claim form was filed within the three-month time limit in CPR 54.5 or make an application for an extension of time if required.
    (c) The Defendant may respond to any such application within 7 days.
    (d) Thereafter, the matter should be put before a judge to consider the Claimant’s application for an EOT, if required, and permission, on the papers.
  4. Interim Relief:
    (a) The application for interim relief is to be listed for an oral hearing with a time estimate of 2 hours on the first available date after 14 days.
    (b) Case management directions for this interim relief hearing are set out below.
  5. Case Management Directions for interim relief hearing:
    (a) The parties must agree the contents of the interim relief hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge a hard-copy version of the hearing bundle.
    (b) The parties must file and serve Skeleton Arguments (maximum 10 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 3 days before the date of the interim relief hearing.
    (c) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the interim relief hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 3 days before the date of the interim relief hearing.
    (d) The time estimate for the interim relief hearing is 2 hours. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

Observations and reasons

(1) The Claimant is seeking to challenge the Defendant’s decision, which was completed and sent to him on 10 December 2024, to treat him as an adult with a purported date of birth of 27 October 2000, and the age
assessment process underpinning that decision which took place in August and September 2024.
(2) Anonymity: The Claimant is a putative child asylum seeker. There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(3) Litigation Friend: The Claimant issued this claim without a litigation friend, as permitted by CPR 21.3(2)(b)(i). I am prepared to make an order dispensing with the requirement to appoint a Litigation Friend under CPR 21.2(3) taking into account the Claimant’s putative age and the statement of his solicitor, Gintare Daukintye dated 6 March 2025.
(4) Permission: The claim form is dated 6 March 2025 and the statement of grounds is dated 10 March 2025, but the information provided by the court office is that the claim was not filed and issued until 11 April 2025. Even taking the date of the decision under challenge as the date when the age assessment decision was communicated to the Claimant on 10 December 2024, if the claim was not filed until 11 April 2025 that would be outside the three-month time limit in CPR 54.5 and an application for an extension of time would be required before permission is considered. Directions have been made to allow the Claimant to clarify the position.
Interim Relief
(5) The Claimant seeks interim relief in the form of a mandatory order that the Defendant must treat the Claimant as a child of his claimed age (date of birth 27.10.2007) and maintain the provision of suitable accommodation and support for a child of that age.
(6) The Claimant accepts that he will turn 18 in October 2025 but contends that even after that date, he will be entitled to support as a former relevant person under the Children Act 1989.
(7) I consider that the application for a mandatory order would be best determined at a hearing at which the court can hear up to date submissions from both sides about the Claimant’s current circumstances, and full arguments about the strength of his case and the balance of convenience.