BLE -v- Derby City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000180

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

25 June 2022

Before:

Her Honour Judge Carmel
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
BLE

-v-

Derby City Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant dated 11 June 2025 for anonymity, an order dispensing with the requirement for a litigation friend and for abridgement of time and expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

The Claimant’s application dated 11 June 2025 is granted to the following extent:

  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 BLE.

(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.

  1. Litigation friend: Pursuant to CPR 21.2(3) I permit the Claimant to conduct proceedings without a litigation friend but I direct that the Claimant’s solicitors must notify the Court forthwith if their view as to the Claimant’s ability to weigh advice and offer appropriate instructions changes such that a litigation friend should be appointed.
  2. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) I refuse to abridge time for the Acknowledgement of Service to be filed and served.

(b) I direct that on receipt of the Reply or after the time to file and serve a Reply has expired (whichever is the sooner) the papers are to be referred to a Judge as soon as possible thereafter for consideration of permission and interim relief.

  1. Costs: Reserved.
    1. This Order has been made without a hearing. Any person affected may apply for it to be set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of service.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and claims to be a child aged 15 (born on 2 September 2009). There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. The Claimant’s Article 8 rights outweigh the public interest in identifying him.

(2) Litigation friend: Having considered the witness statement of Martin Bridger dated 11 June 2025, I note that the Claimant is an unaccompanied asylum-seeker and has no person available to act as litigation friend. Mr Bridger states that the Claimant is able to weigh up advice and offer appropriate instructions. The detail offered in the Claimant’s own witness statement supports Mr Bridger’s view. In those circumstances it is appropriate for the Claimant to conduct these proceedings without a litigation friend. It is, though, necessary to keep this issue under review. I note Mr Bridger has said he will do so.

(3) Abridgement of time/expedition: I have refused to abridge the time for filing and service of the Acknowledgement of Service for reasons of pragmatism. The Claimant’s application dated 11 June 2025 has only been considered today (25 June 2025). The claim form was served on 16 June 2025 so that without abridging time the Acknowledgement of Service must be filed and served within the next 12 days. In the context of the Claimant’s current situation, that is now sufficiently soon.

(4) I have directed that on receipt of a Reply or after the time for filing and service of a Reply has expired, the application for permission and interim relief should be considered on an expedited basis and without further delay. This is because the substance of the claim (involving the interests of a person who alleges he is a child) justifies early consideration.

Signed: HHJ CARMEL WALL
Date: 25 June 2025