BYI -v- London Borough of Southwark (anonymity order and application for judicial review)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim Number: AC-2024-LON-004007

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

21 March 2025

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:
His Honour Judge Auerbach
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:
The King on the application of
BYI
-v-
London Borough of Southwark

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

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

ORDER by His Honour Judge Auerbach (sitting as a Judge of the High Court).

  1. The Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2 in any report of these proceedings there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his identification. In the proceedings he shall be anonymised and referred to as BYI. No non-party shall be provided with a document from the Court file which has not been redacted to protect the Claimant’s identity.
  3. The claimant is permitted to conduct this claim without a litigation friend.
  4. The matter is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). All further directions for the conduct of the matter going forward (including in relation to any further pleadings) will be for determination by the Upper Tribunal.
  5. Costs in the case.

Observations and Reasons

1. The Claimant claims to be, presently, 17 years old. This is a challenge to the Defendant’s assessment, issued in September 2024, that he is 24.
2. In view of the Claimant’s claimed age and circumstances, as described in his claim, I have granted his application for anonymity.
3. I have also granted the application to dispense with a litigation friend, as, on the claimant’s case he is aged 17, and will turn 18 in May 2025, he is professionally represented and no other issues of capacity appear to arise.
4. The points made in the Defendant’s response to this claim suggest that the claim faces formidable obstacles. The Defendant certainly has an arguable case that it conducted a holistic Merton-compliant assessment overall. However, I note that the age ranges given by at least some of those involved included 18 – 21. Asking myself whether, in light of all the grounds taken as a whole, the Claimant has an at least arguable case that the Upper Tribunal could reach a factual finding that he was, at the relevant date, under 18, I consider that he does.
5. I have decided that permission should therefore be granted. I do not think it would be just to refuse it on the grounds of lack of promptness in bringing the claim.
6. The Upper Tribunal is better equipped to determine the factual issue and I have directed a transfer of this matter to it accordingly. It is better to allow all grounds to proceed together.
7. All further directions, including consideration of the applications for interim relief and expedition, will be a matter for the Upper Tribunal.