FRU -v- Trafford Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-MAN-000475

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

14 October 2025

Before:

Andrew Kinnier KC (sitting as a Deputy judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King on the application of
FRU

-v-

Trafford Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, permission to proceed without a litigation friend and non-urgent interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY ANDREW KINNIER K.C. (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 “FRU”.
    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.
  2. Litigation friend: the Claimant is released from the requirement to conduct this claim by a litigation friend.
  3. Interim relief: the application for interim relief will be considered with the question of permission. The Claimant has permission to apply on giving 2 working days’ written notice to the Defendant.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: the claimant is an asylum-seeker and, on his own case, he is still under 18 years of age (17 years and 9 months). There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Litigation friend: given his age, his solicitor’s assessment that the claimant has capacity and generally does not have any difficulty giving instructions and understanding advice and the guidance in R (JS) v SSHD, I am satisfied that there is no need for the claimant to bring and conduct the proceedings by a litigation friend.
  3. Interim relief: on his own case, the claimant is close to achieving his majority. He is housed and he is not destitute. Although I recognise that the claimant feels uncomfortable in his present accommodation, there is no medical or other expert evidence that the effect on the claimant of being housed in adult accommodation is such as to create any vulnerabilities or materially to aggravate any pre-existing vulnerabilities.
  4. As matters stand, I am not persuaded that this case is such as to justify the court granting interim relief without seeking the defendant’s response to the application. I note that the claimant’s representatives do not suggest that the matter is urgent. In any event, on the present evidence, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to abridge time for service of the Acknowledgement of Service and/or a response to the application. At this stage, no order will be made on the claimant’s application for interim relief which will be considered when the court decides permission. Should the claimant’s position significantly change and that change is supported by evidence, he may apply to the court to re-consider whether interim relief is justified before permission is decided.