FNT -v- Northamptonshire Children’s Trust (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000360

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 January 2026

Before:

Mr Jonathan Glasson KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
FNT
(acting by his litigation friend, FWY)

-v-

Northamptonshire Children’s Trust

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, interim relief and permission for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds

ORDER BY MR JONATHAN GLASSON KC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  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 FNT and the Claimant’s Litigation Friend as FWY.

(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. Mandatory injunction:

(a) The application for interim relief is granted. The Defendant must treat the Claimant in accordance with his claimed age and, as soon as practicable and in any event within 14 days, provide him with support and accommodation accordingly under sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 pending determination of his age or until 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

Permission for judicial review

  1. Permission for judicial review is granted.

    Transfer
  2. The claim is transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) pursuant to section 31A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for a fact-finding hearing to determine the Claimant’s age as a question of fact.

    Expedition
  3. The application for expedition is adjourned for consideration by the Upper Tribunal.

    Costs
  4. Costs in case.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and claims to be a child. His account also includes information of a personal nature, concerning his personal history. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. As a precautionary measure, I have also provided for the identity of his litigation friend to be anonymised but the necessity for that should be reviewed by the Upper Tribunal on transfer.

(2) Permission: The Claimant challenges the age assessment decision both on substantive and procedural grounds. As to the former, on the material before me, the claim raises a factual case which, taken at its highest could properly succeed at a contested factual hearing: R (Z) v Croydon London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 59 [2011] PTSR 748, CA at para 9. In R (SB) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Court of Appeal considered whether it was appropriate for age dispute challenges to be transferred in their totality to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing or for procedural challenges to be retained in the Administrative Court. Laing LJ observed [paras 85-86] that in general, procedural fairness challenges should not be separated from the merits of the claim. While procedural challenges may be relevant to whether permission should be granted, the norm should be that the whole claim is transferred for determination by the Upper Tribunal [para 86]. The Defendant has accepted that should permission be granted then the entirety of the claim should be transferred. I agree: in my judgment the procedural aspects of the challenge should be considered as part of the totality of the claim.

(3) Interim relief: as explained in Derby City Council v R (UYR) [2025] EWCA Civ 1648, the appropriate test is that in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 and R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1425 (Admin). The question is whether there is a serious issue to be tried (a real prospect of success) and, if that test is satisfied, then the court must go on to consider where the balance of convenience lies. The Defendant accepts that the first limb of American Cyanamid test is likely to be satisfied if the permission threshold is reached. In my judgment the balance of convenience (or to use the language used in some of the cases of “the balance of justice and injustice”) falls in favour of granting interim relief for the reasons set out in paras 100- 106 of his Statement of Facts and Grounds. I have therefore granted the interim relief sought.

(4) The terms of the injunction sought was that compliance should be “as soon as practicable”. It is preferable to set a specific deadline, and I have therefore provided for compliance within 14 days but in any event, there is provision for an application for that to be varied.

(5) Expedition: The Defendant does not oppose the application for expedition. However, the Upper Tribunal is required by rule 27(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to “give directions as to the future conduct of the proceedings.” Accordingly, I have adjourned that application for consideration by the Upper Tribunal.

Signed: JONATHAN GLASSON KC
Date: 5 JANUARY 2026