September 26, 2025

CYK -v- Kent County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000736

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

24 September 2025

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge Church
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
CYK
(Claimant)

-v-

Kent County Council
(Defendant)

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

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 CYK.

(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.

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.

Expert evidence: the application for permission to rely upon the expert report of Dr Zoe Given-Wilson is dismissed.
Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard- copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Anonymity: the Claimant is a vulnerable care leaver with an outstanding asylum claim. The Claimant is vulnerable by reasons of his mental health and by reason of the risk of harm to himself that he presents. These are compelling reasons to derogate from the principle of open justice in the limited way provided for in the Order.

(2) Expert evidence: the Claimant has applied for the Court’s consent to rely upon the expert report of Dr Zoe Given-Wilson dated 21 May 2025. CPR 35.1 provides that permission is to be given only where the expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. In judicial review proceedings the Court’s function is to determine whether the decision or conduct challenged was a lawful exercise of a public function, not to assess the merits of the decision or conduct under challenge. It is seldom necessary or appropriate to consider evidence going beyond what was before the decision maker and evidence about the process by which the decision was taken. Dr Given-Wilson’s report was not before the decision maker. Indeed, the decision under challenge was made on 10 December 2024, while Dr Given-Wilson’s report is dated 21 May 2025, some five months later. I am not persuaded that this evidence is reasonably required to resolve the issues in these proceedings and I do not consider that it would be in the interests of justice to consent to it being adduced.

(3) Permission:

(a) The Claimant seeks to challenge the lawfulness of the Defendant’s needs assessment of 10 December 2024 (the “Needs Assessment”) and alleges an ongoing failure to undertake a lawful needs assessment and lawfully to support him in accordance with its duties under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”) and relevant statutory guidance.

(b) By his ground 1a the Claimant argues that the Needs Assessment was unlawful because it took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the fact that he was in receipt of asylum support. He argues that the Defendant’s duties under the CA 1989 take primacy over the duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”), and the availability of support under section 95 of the IAA1999 should be treated as residual and should be disregarded when assessing and meeting the Claimant’s needs.

(c) This issue was considered by Jonathan Moffett KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in R (AAM) v London Borough of Bromley [2025] EWHC 1565 (Admin), which concerned a qualifying young person for the purposes of section 24 of the CA 1989 and an asylum seeker. The judge decided at[142]:
“I consider that, when a local authority is deciding whether there are exceptional circumstances for the purposes of s. 24A(5), it is not entitled to take into account the fact that a qualifying young person is being provided with, or might be provided with, NASS accommodation under s. 95; that is a legally irrelevant consideration. It follows that, when the Council drew up the pathway plan, it erred in law by taking into account the fact that the Claimant was being provided with NASS accommodation by the Secretary of State. As a result, the pathway plan is unlawful …”

(d) The Claimant’s case comfortably clears the threshold of “arguability” and warrants a grant of permission. My grant of permission is unrestricted.

Signed: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
Date: 24 09 2025