FOK -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004677

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 January 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

Between:

The King
FOK
(by his Litigation Friend, Afnan Salah Omer Khalid)
(Claimant)

-v-

Hampshire County Council
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief, for anonymity, and appointment of a litigation friend

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

Anonymity

  1. 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 shall 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 FOK.

  1. 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 his identification as a party to these proceedings in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  1. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(iii) 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;

(iv) 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;

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

  1. Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Litigation Friend

  1. Afnan Salah Omer Khalid shall act as the Claimant’s litigation friend in these proceedings.

Interim relief

6. The application for interim relief is refused.

      Costs

      7. The costs of and occasioned by the application for interim relief shall be the Defendant’s costs in the case. The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly, any amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

      Reasons

      1. The Claimant is an Egyptian national. He arrived in the UK on 2 May 2025. He has made a claim for asylum that has not yet been determined. The Claimant has been the subject of two age assessments (on 30 July 2025 and 25 November 2025). The first assessed his age as 20 years old but following complaint by the Claimant was withdrawn; the second assessment concluded that the Claimant is 23 years old.
      2. This challenge is to that second assessment. The Claimant’s case is that his date of birth is 13 August 2009, making him 16 years old. In the claim for judicial review the Claimant contends (1) that the conclusion reached in age assessment was wrong and he is 16 years old; (2) that the age assessment was conducted in a way that was procedurally unfair in that it was not approached by the Defendant with an open mind, that the assessors were too “adversarial”, and that the assessors had regard to information gathered during the first age assessment; and (3) that the decision as to the Claimant’s age was irrational.
      3. The Claimant seeks interim relief in the form of an order requiring that he be provided with post-16 accommodation by the Defendant pending determination of the judicial review proceedings.
      4. The Defendant was asked to file a response to the application for interim relief. It has filed and served its Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, addressing not just the application for interim relief but also the whole of the judicial review claim. However, at this stage, and because the Claimant has not yet had the opportunity to file the Reply he is entitled to file under the CPR, I will decide only the application for interim relief.
      5. I am not satisfied there is a serious issue to be tried.
      6. The evidence in support of the Claimant’s case on Ground 1 is very thin, comprising largely the impression formed by the Claimant’s litigation friend. By contrast, the challenged age assessment document is, on its face, well-prepared and thoroughly- reasoned. It is possible that this ground may, in due course, meet the lower test for permission to apply for judicial review that applies when the factual conclusion reached on an age assessment is challenged, but I am far from convinced that it will, and I do not consider it meets the standard required to demonstrate the sort of triable issue required where the interim relief sought would impose positive obligations on a defendant.
      7. I do not consider that either Ground 2 or Ground 3 raises any serious triable issue. The Defendant’s response to these grounds (at §§23 – 33) is powerful. I accept the points made.
      8. In any event, and even assuming the serious issue hurdle is passed, the balance of convenience is against the grant of interim relief. The Claimant is presently accommodated by the Home Office at an hotel in Derby. From what I can gather, he has his own room and shares canteen facilities. The Claimant complains that the accommodation is unclean and that he has not yet been provided with his Aspen card. However, those are matters to be taken up with the Home Office. I have considered the medical report prepared by Alice Rogers. That report describes the Claimant as “having symptoms of PTSD” but not meeting the criteria for diagnosis. It is also clear that the Claimant is upset by his present circumstances, which is entirely understandable. These matters are relevant to the balance of convenience, but I do not consider they are compelling. I note in particular that the evidence is to the effect that the Claimant is able to care for himself and has done so. In this case, the matters that are material are (a) the weakness of the Claimant’s case (even assuming it raises a serious issue); and (b) that granting the interim relief requested would not be in the public interest because it would, without sufficient reason, add to the calls on the Defendant’s finite resources.
      9. I have granted the orders for anonymity and for appointment of a litigation friend, requested by the Claimant.

      Date: 8 January 2026