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

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000062

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on application of
BLD
(an asserted child with the assistance of his uncle and Litigation Friend, BIO)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the Claimant’s application for directions, after consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant only.

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as BLD and his uncle and Litigation Friend as BIO
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. Without prejudice to the disputed issue of the Claimant’s age, his uncle BIO is appointed as his Litigation Friend under the inherent jurisdiction.
  3. The claim is stayed until Friday 4th April 2025 to enable disclosure from the Defendant to the Claimant.
  4. The Claimant has permission to amend and perfect its grounds of challenge by 4pm on 18th April 2025.
  5. Time for the Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service is extended to 9th May 2025
  6. Costs in the case

Reasons

This is an age assessment challenge where the Claimant’s solicitors were instructed late and have struggled to take instructions and obtain relevant documentation. They have reasonably requested anonymity, the appointment of the Claimant’s uncle as Litigation Friend and a stay to enable disclosure and amendment of grounds with an extension of time for the Defendant to respond. However, it is preferable to give set dates, on the basis the Claimant can always apply for extensions which can be considered administratively.

Signed: HHJ Tindal