GRH -v- West Northamptonshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-000395

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

23 January 2026

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GRH

-v-

WEST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL

and

COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL
(Interested Party)

Order

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL SITTING AS A 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 GRH.
    (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:
    (a) The Claimant has permission to proceed without a litigation friend.
    (b) The Claimant’s solicitors must notify the Court/Upper Tribunal forthwith if:
    (i) A suitable litigation friend is identified; or
    (ii) They believe that the Claimant is no longer able to give instructions or manage these proceedings with sufficient understanding and competency that the appointment of a litigation friend is then necessary.
  3. Witness statements:
    (a) The Claimant’s application dated 11 December 2025 to rely on his first witness statement is granted.
    (b) The Court of its own initiative gives permission for the Claimant to rely on the second witness statement of his solicitor made on 14 January 2026.
  4. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  5. Interim relief: The Claimant’s application for interim relief is refused.
  6. Transfer to the Upper Tribunal:
    (a) The case is transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
    (b) On transfer the case is to be referred to a Judge of the Upper Tribunal to consider further case management directions and whether the claim should be expedited.
  7. Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 have been decided without a hearing and without other mechanism to challenge these parts of the Order. Any person affected may apply to set aside or vary these parts of the Order provided any application is made within 7 days of service.
  8. Costs reserved

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) The Claimant is a national of Ethiopia who entered the UK in a small boat, seeking asylum. He claims to have a date of birth of 13 March 2009 and so to be aged 16. It is contended by the Defendant that he is in fact an adult.
(2) The grounds are arguable. As age assessment is the central issue in dispute and age is an issue of fact, it is appropriate to transfer the case to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing.
(3) Until the Claimant’s age has been determined and his entitlement to anonymity can be further considered, it is appropriate for him to have the benefit of anonymity as would be the norm for any child claimant.
(4) I accept that the Claimant’s solicitors have attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the services of a litigation friend and that their enquiries are ongoing. It would be unfair to the Claimant to delay this claim while these enquiries continue when his solicitors have found him to be able to understand the litigation process and give them full instructions. The directions provide for the solicitors to notify the Court/Upper Tribunal if they are able to identify a suitable litigation friend or if circumstances change so that they are no longer confident that the Claimant has the
ability to manage the proceedings without one. Further directions can then be given as necessary.
(5) I grant the application to admit the Claimant’s first witness statement. I accept that there were difficulties due to communication, the obtaining of a suitable interpreter and his ill-health all of which delayed the preparation of this statement. It is in the interests of justice for it to be considered.
(6) Although no application has been made to admit the Claimant’s solicitor’s second witness statement it is in the interests of justice that this evidence is considered as part of the case. I note that the subject matter of the statement arose after the claim was filed. The litigation is in its early stages so there is sufficient time for the Defendant and Interested Party to consider this evidence and address it, if so advised, without prejudice. I note that the Summary Grounds of Defence have referred to this evidence.
(7) I refuse interim relief. Applying the American Cyanamid test, I am satisfied that the grant of permission indicates that there is a serious issue to be tried. I am not though satisfied that the balance of convenience has been shown to favour the grant of interim relief. It is not appropriate simply to approach this issue generically but rather to consider what particular factors in this case weigh in the balance. The Claimant is in adult accommodation in Coventry. However, there is no evidence about the nature of the accommodation or the support available to him there. Nothing in the Claimant’s own witness statement addresses the suitability of his current placement. There is no sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the particular accommodation and any support he may be receiving is unsuitable for his needs or detrimental to his health or development. It is always open to the Claimant, should his circumstances change, to make a further application