GRS -v- Westminster City Council and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC/2026/LON/000122

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 January 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

The King
on the application of
GRS
(by his litigation friend, Fan-Kuei (Virginia (Meng)

-v-

(1) Westminster City Council
(2) Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

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 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 GRS.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. If the Defendants (or either of them) wish to vary or discharge the Order for Anonymity (paragraphs 1-3 above), they shall make representations to that effect in their response to the application for interim relief and/or Acknowledgment of Service.
  5. Any other person wishing to vary or discharge the Order for Anonymity (paragraphs 1-3 above) must make an application, served on each party.

Litigation Friend

6. Pursuant to CPR 21.4(3), Ms Fan-Kuei (Virginia) Meng is to be the Claimant’s litigation friend.

7. If the Defendants (or either of them) wish to vary or discharge the Order for the Litigation Friend (paragraph 6 above), they shall make representations to that effect in their response to the application for interim relief and/or Acknowledgment of Service.

Prohibitory Injunction

8. The First Defendant must not evict the Claimant from the accommodation provided at King George’s Hostel, Room A9, 75 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 2BN pending a determination on permission, or further order of the Court.

9. The First Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 8 above; any application to be served on the Claimant.

10. Any application made under paragraph 9 is to be referred to a judge (including a deputy judge) within 72 hours after issue.

Abridgement of time and expedition/response to application for interim relief

11. The First Defendant’s and Second Defendant’s response to the application for interim relief, and their Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 28 January 2026.

12. Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served within 3 working days of the service of the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance.

13. The papers are to be referred to a judge (including a deputy judge) within 5 days thereafter for consideration of the applications for permission and interim relief.

14. The Defendants (or either of them) may apply to the Court on 72 hours’ notice to vary the timetable set at paragraphs 11-13 above.

Costs

15. Costs reserved.

This is an order for an injunction. Breach of paragraph 9 of this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 2 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 8 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is a 55-year-old Chinese national without regular immigration status. He has no recourse to public funds.
  2. The Claimant has been refused asylum and has received a negative reasonable grounds decision from the National Referral Mechanism. The Claimant is challenging both of these decisions. According to material presented to the Court, it appears that the Claimant may be suffering from a number of mental and physical health problems. For this reason, I am prepared to grant the Claimant anonymity and the appointment of a Litigation Friend. If the Defendants (or either of them) wish to challenge either of these decisions then they may have permission to do so.
  3. Following the Claimant suffering a series of strokes, he was accommodated by the First Defendant at King George’s Hostel at 75 Great Peter Street. This was made available to him as a “health bed” provision. The Claimant is assisted by a support worker at the Single Homeless Project.
  4. The First Defendant has stated that it does not owe any duty to provide the Claimant with accommodation under section 18 of the Care Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”). The First Defendant says that the Claimant can obtain accommodation from the Second Defendant under sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the 1999 Act”), and has stated that it will terminate the Claimant’s accommodation at King George’s Hostel imminently. The Claimant contends that the First Defendant does not appear to have considered its powers under section 19 of the 2014 Act.
  5. The Second Defendant has offered to provide the Claimant with section 98 accommodation (see response to PAP letter, 21 December 2025). It is suggested in the First Witness Statement of Elizabeth Salmon (a solicitor for the Claimant), however, that the Second Defendant declined to provide the Claimant with accommodation under section 98 on the basis initially that the Claimant’s reported care and support needs meant that suitable accommodation could not be made available for him; and more recently it was thought (mistakenly) that the Claimant was eligible instead for support under section 4 of the 1999 Act (support for those who have exhausted their asylum appeal rights).
  6. On 8 January 2026, the Second Defendant was requested to provide the Claimant with suitable accommodation to meet his care needs, and which was close to his support network in Westminster. The Second Defendant has not confirmed that it will provide this support, or explained why not.
  7. There is, therefore, a lack of clarity as to whether the Claimant will be accommodated by the Second Defendant; and, if so, where; and, if not, why not. Further, there is a lack of clarity as to whether the First Defendant will (or even has the power to) accommodate the Claimant if the Second Defendant does not accommodate him under the 1999 Act.
  8. Eviction from King George’s Hostel would render the Claimant ‘street homeless’ if he is not provided with accommodation by the Second Defendant under the 1999 Act. Given that the Claimant has a degree of vulnerability, eviction at this time of year gives rise to a real possibility that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be contravened. In the circumstances, the Court will order that the Claimant should not be evicted from King George’s Hostel until the matter is clarified by each of the Defendants and consideration of the facts and issues has been made by the Court. This order gives rise to the least risk of injustice to the parties and to the public interest.
  9. I have set a timetable for the parties to clarify their positions. If the Defendants, or either of them, wish to respond sooner they may do so. If they seek longer, they can apply to vary the timetable. If the First Defendant wishes to vary or discharge the injunction, this is provided for within the Order.

Signed: Mr Justice Sheldon

Date: 13 January 2026