CFC -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-CDF-000103

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

26 September 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Keyser KC,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
CFC

-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 HIS HONOUR JUDGE KEYSER KC
SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) The identity of the Claimant be not disclosed, whether directly or indirectly.
    (b) The Claimant be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise in accordance with the heading to this Order.
    (c) A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service.
    (d) Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. The publication of the name and address of the Claimant is prohibited.
    (e) Any non-party affected by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph may apply on notice to all parties to have this Order set aside or varied.
  2. Amendment and Reply: The Claimant has permission to rely on the amended claim form and the reply, in accordance with his application dated 10 June 2025.
  3. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £4,915.50.
  5. Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 4 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 4 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 4 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 4 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 4 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.
  1. 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 45 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) It is appropriate to grant anonymity to the claimant in these proceedings. He is an asylum seeker, and the interests of the claimant and of members of his family in restricting publication of his identity outweighs any public interest in knowing it. The defendant does not oppose the granting of anonymity.
(2) The application to rely on the amended claim form and the reply is not opposed.
(3) The claimant seeks to review four decisions of the defendant not to review is previous age assessment following the receipt of further evidence; these decisions are dated 30 January 2025, 18 February 2025, 25 April 2025 and 8 May 2025.
(4) Ground 1 is that the defendant’s decisions are unlawful because it misapplied the reassessment test. I do not regard this as arguable. The complaint is made that the defendant has not addressed the question whether the further information might result in a significantly different conclusion (in the sense that the claimant might be notably older or younger than initially assessed: pace the Statement of Facts and Grounds, this latter is explanatory of the “significantly different conclusion” test, not a distinct limb of a twofold test); rather, it is said, the defendant has jumped straight to the substantive question of the claimant’s age. That is plainly not right. The first decision said that the further information would not lead the defendant “to question” the original assessment; that, in different words, addresses the substance of the test for reassessment. (See also the terms of the decision dated 25 April 2025.) The other responses simply show why the defendant regarded the new information as not being supportive evidence on which weight could be placed. In short, the defendant made clear that it did not consider that the new information might lead to a significantly different conclusion, because it did not accept that the new information had probative value. Whether or not that was a reasonable assessment of the probative value of the new information, it was not a misapplication of the proposed test for reassessment. The claimant’s submissions to the effect that matters of cogency and weight are relevant to the conduct of the reassessment but not to the decision whether to reassess are overstated, because (subject to rationality) the public body is not obliged to enter upon reassessment if it concludes that it is not the case that the new information puts the original assessment in question.
(5) Of course, this all presupposes that the “test” in the ADCS Guidance is binding (which in my view is not arguable) or, at least, that it is relevant the question whether departure from statutory guidance was lawful (which is arguable but not relevant in this case, as departure from statutory guidance is not relied on).
(6) Ground 2 is that the defendant acted unlawfully in concluding that the re-assessment test applies only for the purpose of determining whether duties are owed under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. This ground is irrelevant if ground 1 is unarguable.
(7) Ground 3 is that the decisions are irrational. That is a high threshold, and in my view it is not arguable that the claimant surmounts it, for reasons set out in the defendant’s summary grounds.

Signed: HHJ Keyser KC
Date: 26 September 2025