BBN -v- Derby City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000111

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 May 2025

Before:

HHJ Worster
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

BBN

-v-

Derby City Council

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HHJ Worster sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  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 BBN.

(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;

(e) The orders at (a)-(d) above shall cease to have effect on the final determination of this claim or further order.

  1. The Claimant has permission to proceed without a litigation friend.
  2. Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is refused.
  4. The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence. The amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.
  5. Renewal directions:

Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) Whilst permission is refused, I have made the orders at 1 and 2 to preserve the position lest there be an application to renew.

(2) BBN is a national of Eritrea. He arrived in the UK by small boat on 13 December 2024 and claimed asylum the following day, giving 6 November 2007 as his date of birth (age 17). The SSHD assessed BBN as being significantly over the age of 18 and he was subsequently accommodated by the Defendant in adult accommodation. On 9 January 2025 two social workers carried out a short interview. They did not accept his claimed date of birth and concluded that BBN was clearly an adult in physical appearance and demeanour. BBN challenges that decision, and (if permission is granted) applies for an interim order that he be accommodated in children’s accommodation.

(3) For the purposes of considering permission, I have taken account of the witness statement BBN relies upon.

(4) Ground 1 is to the effect that BBN’s evidence, taken at its highest, could properly succeed at a contested hearing. The test sets a relatively low bar, but the evidence in this case is so weak that it is not met. All that BBN can say is this:
I know my age and date of birth because my mother told me on several occasions. She also used to celebrate my birthday after we moved to Ethiopia. She would celebrate my birthday by preparing Dabo bread, popcorn and candles, I remembered always having three candles. My last birthday celebration was when I turned 7 years old. I know this because my mother died that year and since her passing, no one else celebrated my birthday.

(5) BBN relies on what he says he was told on “several occasions” 10 years ago or more, when he was 7 or younger. Given the evidence of appearance and demeanour, even taken at its highest, t cannot be said that BBN could properly succeed at a contested hearing.

(6) As to the public law grounds:

Ground 2 – The decision was based on appearance and demeanour. A minded to process was unnecessary, and the absence of such a procedure did not render the decision unfair.

Ground 3 – There is no margin of error to be applied. D decided that BBN was clearly an adult.

Ground 4 – D’s social workers were aware of the circumstances of BBN’s journey to the UK and would have taken it into account. The reliance upon BBN’s appearance and demeanour was reasonable given the nature of the decision (which was not to fix a date of birth, but to determine that BBN was clearly an adult).

Ground 5 – There is no evidence that the lack of an appropriate adult rendered the process unfair. BBN displayed an ability to engage and speak about the relevant issues.

(7) There is no reasonable prospect of this claim succeeding at a full hearing, and permission is refused.

(8) Had I determined that there was an arguable case, either on ground 1 or the public law grounds, I would have refused the application for interim relief. On any view, this is a weak case. Whilst there is a difference between the nature of the accommodation to be provided to a child and an adult, on BBN’s case he is 17 years and 6 months, and an adult in November 2025. There is no medical evidence that the current accommodation is causing any particular problem. He says that living with much older people is having an adverse effect on his mental health, but there is no evidence of any particular vulnerability or risk to health. Children’s accommodation is a scarce resource, and on balance I am not persuaded that interim relief is justified in this case.

(9) D also submits that the claim should fail because the proceedings were not brought promptly. The claim form was issued on 8 April 2025, 1 day before the 3-month limit imposed by CPR Part 54.5(1). In D‘s SGD it points out that despite PAP letters on 20.1.25 and 12.2.25 (responded to), there was then an unexplained delay until issue. No explanation is offered for that delay in the Claim. BBN has filed a Reply. It makes submissions as to the approach to the question of whether as claim is “prompt”, but offers no explanation for the delay. In those circumstances the Court can only infer that there is no reason for that delay (or no good reason) and that there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 54.5(1).

(10) I have dealt with the matter on the merits, rather than determining the issue of whether the claim was brought in time. In the event that the application for permission is renewed, it will remain open to D to pursue its case on this issue.

Signed: HHJ Worster
Date: 22 May 2025