CSM -v- Coventry City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-000255

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

19 August 2025

Before:

HHJ Emma Kelly

Between:

The King
on the application of
CSM

-v-

Coventry City Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for directions on issue of the claim

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant including the Claimant’s bundle

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE EMMA KELLY

  1. 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 CSM.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Litigation Friend:

    To the extent required, the Claimant has permission to proceed without a litigation friend.

3. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 27 August 2025.

(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by 4pm on 29 August 2025.

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge as soon as possible thereafter. The Claimant’s application for interim relief pending the final outcome of the claim shall be considered when the application for permission is considered.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. On his case he is a child aged 16. The claim involves personal details, including medical information and family circumstances, in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Litigation Friend: It is understood that the Defendant has age assessed the Claimant as being 20. However, on the Claimant’s case he is a child within the meaning of CPR 21.1(2)(b) and, by CPR 21.2(2), he requires a litigation friend unless the Court makes an order permitting a child to conduct proceedings without a litigation friend. It is unnecessary (and would be inappropriate) for the Court to determine at this stage whether the Claimant is a child for the purpose of CPR 21.1(2)(b). The Claimant is represented by experienced an solicitor and counsel, has the benefit of public funding, is aged 16 on his own case, and his legal representatives are satisfied he is able to give instructions and understand advice given. It is therefore appropriate to dispense with the need for a litigation friend, to the extent one would otherwise be required.

(3) Abridgement of time/expedition: The Claimant applies for interim relief to require the Defendant to provide care and support on the basis he is a child. He seeks determination of that application alongside an expediated permission application. The Claimant was previously accommodated with a foster family on the basis he was a looked after child. The Defendant’s age assessment concluded he was an adult and the Claimant is now living in hotel accommodation with adults. The question of whether alternative care and support should be provided as interim relief requires a timely determination given the potential impact on the Claimant of his living circumstances. Timeliness needs to be balanced against the need for input into the claim from the Defendant. The appropriate balance is struck by expediting the timetable slightly.

Signed: HHJ Emma Kelly
Date: 19 August 2025