BLO -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001681

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

9 July 2025

Before:

Hugh Southey KC

Between:

The King on the application of
BLO

-v-

Hampshire County Council

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 and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HUGH SOUTHEY KC (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 BLO.
    (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.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: No order as to costs.
  4. 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: I have struggled with this. The material in support of anonymity is limited. On my findings, it is not arguable that the Claimant is a child. However, he can apply to renew this application and he is an asylum seeker. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. This should be reviewed if the matter proceeds.
(2) Permission:
a. Ground 1: I recognise that the threshold for the grant of permission in this context is low as it would be open to a judge to make their own findings of fact if permission is granted. However, as identified by the Defendant in its summary grounds, the evidence in support of its decision is overwhelming. It appears that experts who have spent time with the Claimant are convinced that he is substantially older than 18. I should note that I am troubled that the apparent change in the position of Ms Fitzmaurice was not highlighted in the grounds.
b. Grounds 2 – 4: It appears to me that these grounds amount to a disagreement with the weight given to various matters by the Defendant. Weight is a matter for the Defendant subject to it not being unreasonable.
c. I have not addressed the issue of whether this claim is out of time as I have concluded that it is not arguable. That is not an extension of time and it is open to a judge considering a renewed application for permission to refuse permission on grounds of delay.