November 3, 2025

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000140

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

20 October 2025

Before:

Jonathan Glasson KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
BFR,
by her litigation friend, BTF

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

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

ORDER BY MR JONATHAN GLASSON KC,
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

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 BFR and their litigation friend as BTF.

(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.

(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) Pursuant to the ‘Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders’ issued by the Master of the Rolls dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this Order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk

Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £976.

4. Further provision as to costs:

(a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).
(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds
after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions
in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after
the permission hearing;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of
the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

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) Anonymity: the Claimant is a child, and I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Permission: the Claimant seeks permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision of 27 February 2025 to revoke their passport.

(3) The Claimant’s litigation friend is a litigant in person, and they have not filed clearly articulated grounds of challenge. The Defendant has responded by identifying three grounds of apparent challenge which broadly distils the claim that appears to be being advanced.

(4) The first ground challenges the revocation of the passport on the basis that there was no evidence to justify that decision. This ground is clearly unarguable as the decision letter sets out the reasons why the passport was being revoked. Moreover, the Defendant’s response (dated 13 March 2025) to the pre-action protocol letter sets out the steps taken by the Defendant to obtain the Claimant’s comments on the doubts that had been raised on the claimed paternal relationship. That letter also explained that the British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 stated that being named as the father on a birth certificate is no longer a prescribed requirement as proof of paternity. Instead, in all cases to establish fatherhood, the person must satisfy the SSHD that he is the natural father of the child. It explained that the onus to prove entitlement to a passport was on the applicant.

(5) The second ground alleges that the decision was in breach of Article 8 ECHR. The Claimant has not articulated the basis upon which the decision was said to be a breach of Article 8. The Defendant’s decision does not disclose any arguable breach of Article 8 ECHR. The Claimant has also asserted that the decision was in breach of Article 14 although no reasons are given in support of that assertion. Again, the Defendant’s decision does not disclose any arguable breach of Article 14.

(6) The final ground is that the decision was unreasonable and not in accordance with the “reported decision of the Court of Appeal Zhou v SSSHD (2003).” It is unclear what is the basis for the reference to Zhou v Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 51, which was an appeal arising from a decision to remove a person before the expiration of the period for which he had been granted limited leave to enter. Insofar as the Claimant seeks to challenge the decision as being unreasonable it is unarguable. It is not enough for the Claimant to disagree with the Defendant’s conclusion to advance an arguable challenge on rationality. The Defendant’s process of decision making and the eventual decision was reasonable (in public law terms) as explained in the Defendant’s Summary Grounds at [21]-[25]. This ground is unarguable.

(7) The Defendant has sought their costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds. The successful defendant party who has filed an Acknowledgement of Service should generally recover the costs incurred: see R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346. I have summarily assessed those costs in the sum claimed on the basis that I have concluded that such costs are reasonable and proportionate.

Signed: Jonathan Glasson KC
Date: 20 October 2025