September 23, 2025

DAR -v- London Borough of Barnet (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-003098

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 September 2025

Before:

Robert Palmer KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
DAR
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Barnet
(Defendant)

and

(1) Manchester City Council
(2) Home Office / National Age Assessment Board

Order

On an urgent application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY ROBERT PALMER 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 DAR.

(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.

Mandatory injunction:

(a) By 26 September 2025, the Defendant must provide the Claimant with suitable support and accommodation, with such accommodation to be located within the Defendant’s local area, under the Children Act 1989, pending final determination of this claim or further order.

(b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.

THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE

3. Permission: the application for permission will be placed before a Judge on the papers in the ordinary way, after the deadlines for service of Acknowledgements of Service and any Reply have passed.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a minor and an asylum seeker. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Mandatory injunction: An order for interim relief is appropriate for the following reasons:

a. The Claimant is now accepted to be a child. He should be provided with suitable support and accommodation under the Children Act 1989 without delay, notwithstanding that there is a dispute between two local authorities as to which one is responsible for providing it.

b. The Claimant has a strong arguable case that the Defendant is the authority (or one of the authorities) which owes the relevant duties under the Children Act 1989, in circumstances where:

i. he was under the Defendant’s care from September 2024 until 14 May 2025;

ii. that care only ceased after an age assessment conducted by the NAAB at the Defendant’s behest erroneously concluded that he was an adult, leading to his dispersal to Manchester;

iii. that age assessment has been now been reversed;

iv. had the original age assessment been correct the Claimant would have remained at all times under the Defendant’s care.

c. In particular, it is strongly arguable that:

i. it was unlawful to withdraw support from a child (notwithstanding that the Defendant acted in good faith on the understanding that he was an adult following the original age assessment); and

ii. the approach adopted by Bean J (as he then was) in R (HA) v LB Hillingdon [2012] EWHC 291 (Admin) should equally be applied here.

d. The balance of convenience strongly favours the grant of interim relief: the Claimant has well established links in Barnet following his previous residence there, and he would be able to re-enrol at the West London College to continue his studies there. That is in sharp contrast to his position in Manchester, where he reports he has suffered from worsening mental health. Although it is right to note that the effect of an interim order would be to place a burden on the limited resources of the Defendant, that is of limited weight in circumstances where the Claimant would never have been removed from the Defendant’s care had the NAAB arrived at the Claimant’s correct age on the first occasion.

e. The Defendant will have the opportunity to apply to vary or discharge this Order in the ordinary way.

Signed: Robert Palmer KC
Date: 22 September 2025