BHD -v- Hampshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001596

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

11 July 2025

Before:

Hugh Southey KC

Between:

The King on the application of
BHD

-v-

Hampshire Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review, anonymity, interim relief and permission to conduct proceedings without a litigation friend.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by HUGH SOUTHEY KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Litigation friend
    (a) The Claimant is granted permission to conduct this litigation without a Litigation Friend.
  2. 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 BHD.
    (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.
  3. Mandatory injunction:
    (a) By 4pm on 25 July 2025, the Defendant must undertake a further age assessment and serve the results of the Claimant and his solicitors.
    THIS IS A [MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY] INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE
  4. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    (a) The Claimant must serve any application to amend his grounds and/or application for interim relief by 4pm on 1 August 2025. In the event of no application to amend, the claim shall be treated as withdraw.
    (b) Any amended Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by the Defendant by 4pm on 8 August 2025.
    (c) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 13 August 2025.
    (d) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge within 7 days thereafter.
  5. There is liberty to apply.

Reasons

(1) Litigation friend: The Claimant is close to adulthood on the basis of his claimed age. There appears to be no doubt that he is capable of conducting this litigation.
(2) Anonymity: The Claimant is a beneficiary of humanitarian protection who may be a child. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(3) Mandatory injunction: There is no dispute that there is an agreement to conduct a fresh age assessment. However, there is a complaint by the Claimant that this has been delayed. On the basis of this it is suggested that permission should be granted. It appears to me the most important thing is for the new age assessment to be undertaken promptly. Any decision on permission at this stage will be taken on a factual basis that should rapidly become out of date.
(4) The Claimant seeks an order that he is treated in accordance with his claimed age. It appears to me that the balance of convenience does not support this. The Claimant was living in adult accommodation for some months when this application was made. A fresh age assessment is being undertaken. It would be better if everything is considered rapidly after the new age assessment. For this reason, expedition is ordered.
(5) Expedition: See above.
(6) This order was made without an oral hearing. As a result, there is a right to renew the application to rely on amended grounds at an oral hearing (R (Nolson) v Stevenage Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 379 and CPR
23.8(3)).