BSL -v- Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001435

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

8 May 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

The King on the application of
BSL (By his litigation friend, AFNAN SALAH OMER KHALID)

-v-

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Order

On an application by the Claimant for expedition of his application for judicial review and a timetable for his application for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

  1. Pursuant to rule 39.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly and this matter shall be known and listed as R (BSL) v Royal Borough of Windsor and
    Maidenhead.
  2. The application for expedition is granted. The Defendant shall file and serve its acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of resistance within 14 days of the date of this order.
  3. The applications for permission and interim relief shall be placed before a Judge within 14 days thereafter to be considered on the papers.
  4. Liberty to apply with at least 2 clear days’ notice to the other parties.
  5. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is an unaccompanied asylum seeker from Eritrea. He claims to be a child. If he is a child then he would be entitled to anonymity in these proceedings. Whether the Claimant is a child is in dispute. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to grant anonymity to the Claimant in case it turns out that he is a child, and in circumstances where there is no particular reason why his name should be publicly available.
  2. The Claimant was age-assessed by the Defendant in an abbreviated process. The Defendant concluded that the Claimant was 20 years old. Subsequently, the Claimant commissioned an Independent Social Worker age assessment which concluded that he was 17 years old. The latter age assessment was provided to the Defendant. As a consequence, the Defendant has agreed to reassess the Claimant, but has refused to provide him with care and support, as if he was a child, in the meantime. He is currently accommodated as an adult in asylum support accommodation.
  3. The Claimant contends that it is unlawful for the Defendant to refuse to provide him with care and support, as if he was a child, pending the age reassessment. The Claimant seeks expedition of the application for judicial review, and a timetable for consideration the application for interim relief.
  4. There is some urgency to this matter and it would be appropriate for the process to be expedited. To that end, I have abridged time for filing and service of the Acknowledgment of Service, and expedited the time for considering the application for interim relief and permission to proceed with the judicial review claim.