CMF -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2024-BHM-000144
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
20 October 2025
Before:
Jonathan Glasson KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
The King
on the application of
CMF
-v-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
Notification of Judge’s Decision on Costs and Anonymity
Following consideration of the costs submissions filed by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER BY MR JONATHAN GLASSON KC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
- 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 CMF.
- Costs
a. The Defendant do pay the Claimant’s costs of and occasioned by the claim to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed by no later than 14 days of assessment / agreement.
b. There be detailed public funding assessment of the Claimant’s costs.
REASONS
(1) On 27 August 2024 the parties filed a consent order whereby the Claimant was given leave to withdraw her claim for judicial review as the parties had agreed that the claim was academic as the Defendant had provided the Claimant with accommodation pursuant to section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The accommodation was provided on 6 June 2024 following the issue of the claim on 20 May 2024.
(2) Anonymity: The consent order recorded that an application for anonymity had been made but not yet determined. The Claimant is an asylum seeker and has an outstanding claim for protection. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(3) Costs: The parties had not agreed the position in relation to the costs of the claim and so the consent order provided for submissions to be filed on that issue.
(4) In their submissions the Defendant argued that the appropriate order should be no order as to costs whilst the Claimant argued that the Defendant should pay her costs as she was the “successful” party in that she had obtained the practical relief following the issuing of the judicial review claim.
(5) The Defendant accepts that the Claimant has achieved the remedy that she sought but nonetheless argues that this case falls within the third category in M v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 595. In that case the Court of Appeal set out an outline approach to costs in judicial review proceedings where there had been a settlement, identifying three categories of cases: (1) where a Claimant has been wholly successful in terms of the relief sought; (2) where a Claimant has only succeeded in part; and (3) where there has been some compromise which does not actually reflect Claimant’s claims.
(6) I do not accept the Defendant’s arguments. The Claimant has been successful. She has achieved what she sought in the issue of proceedings (Emezie v Secretary of State [2013] EWCA Civ 733 [2013] 5 Costs L.R. 685 per Stanley Burnton LJ). The Defendant’s argument that the litigation could have been avoided had she contacted Migrant Help is mis-conceived for the reasons set out in [8] of the Claimant’s Reply submissions. Equally the assertion that the timeframe for providing accommodation was not “unreasonable or excessive” appears to me to be misplaced: see [6] of the Claimant’s Reply submissions.
(7) In the exercise of my discretion, I have determined that the Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs of the claim to be assessed if not agreed.
Signed: JONATHAN GLASSON KC
Date: 20 October 2025