FXO -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-004059

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

30 January 2026

Before:

DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE PAUL BOWEN KC

Between:

The King (on the application of FXO)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service

ORDER BY DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE PAUL BOWEN KC

  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 FXO.
    (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. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  3. Interim relief: Pending determination of this application for judicial review or further order, the Defendant shall, within no less than 14 days from the date of this order, relocate the Claimant and her family to adequate, non-hotel, dispersal accommodation as required under s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
  4. 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) 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.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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.
    (e) 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.
    (f) 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.
    (g) 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. The Claimant (C) seeks permission to apply for judicial review of the Defendant (D)’s failure to provide her with suitable “dispersal accommodation” under s 95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. C has recently given birth. She was while pregnant, and remains as a new mother, accommodated in “initial accommodation”: a single, small room in a hotel, despite the Defendant knowing of her pregnancy since at least 18 August 2025. The distinction between the two forms of accommodation, and the long-running problem of detaining pregnant and new mother asylum seekers (PNMAS) in initial accommodation was recently considered in R (DXK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin). C challenges the D’s failure to transfer her to dispersal accommodation on a number of grounds including a breach of s 95 (Ground 1), breach of D’s own Healthcare Needs and Pregnancy Dispersal Policy, v3.0 (1 February 2016) (the “HNPD Policy”) (Ground 2), breach of Article 8 (Ground 3), breach of s 55 Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (welfare of children) and unlawful discrimination contrary to s 29 Equality Act 2010 (Ground 5).
  2. In their AOS the D has agreed to provide C with dispersal accommodation with effect from 24/12/25 and to pay the C’s costs but I have nevertheless made an interim order for dispersal given the endemic delays in the system. I have indicated a time period of 14 days: my concern I making the time period shorter is that only less appropriate accommodation might be available within 7 days. It may be that C has already been provided with appropriate dispersal accommodation, in which case the order for interim relief will be unnecessary.
  3. C has been invited to withdraw the claim, failing which the Court is invited to dismiss the claim, presumably because it has become academic. No consent order or application to withdraw the claim has been filed.
  4. I do not consider the claim to be academic even if C has already been transferred to her new accommodation. There are outstanding damages claims for breaches of the HRA and the EA 2010 which cannot be dismissed as academic, although they may be more appropriately determined in the County Court if the claim does not otherwise warrant a hearing in the Administrative Court. That the D continues to be in breach of the HNPD Policy in relation to PNMAS after a succession of legal cases in which those failures have been found to be unlawful is troubling. Systemic problems have been identified in DXK and other cases and the present case includes challenges to that system. This case may therefore be an exceptional one that justifies determination even though it is academic so far as it affects the C. For the reasons I gave in DXK, 89-92, if a systemic challenge is to be pursued then the case should also proceed on C’s individual facts even if the case is academic so far as it concerns her.
  5. The claims are plainly arguable and PTAJR is granted. If agreement can be reached then the claim can be withdrawn. If agreement cannot be reached then the claim should proceed to trial. I have indicated a time estimate of 1 day but that is subject to any contrary views of the parties. In DXK the hearing lasted 3 days and that was insufficient. A directions hearing may well be called for once the D has filed her evidence and Detailed Grounds of Defence but, again, that is a matter for the parties.