CPU -v- Telford & Wrekin Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000248

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

12 August 2025

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
CPU

-v-

Telford & Wrekin Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for interim relief

After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as CPU.
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. The need for a Litigation Friend is dispensed with under CPR 21.2(3).
  3. Time for the Defendant to file its Acknowledgement of Service is abridged to 29th August 2025.
  4. Time for the Claimant to file any Reply is abridged to 12th September 2025.
  5. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is adjourned until permission.
  6. Costs in the claim

Reasons

  1. This claim challenges the Defendant’s ‘short-form’ age assessment on 28th May 2025 that the Claimant is an adult. The Claimant asserts that he is 17, born in January 2008. I do not prejudge his claim and will treat him for the moment as a child, so as to grant him anonymity as ‘CPU’. But as he is aged at least 17, I dispense with a Litigation Friend.
  2. However, even on the Claimant’s own case, he was 17 years and 4 months at the time of the disputed assessment. Disturbing the expert judgment of social workers that he was an adult at the time will not be easy for the Claimant, either on the Court’s own findings or by judicial review: see R(SB) v KCLBC [2023] EWCA Civ 924. However, I will expedite the Acknowledgement of Service and the Reply so the Court can consider permission and interim relief next month.  

Signed HHJ Tindal