GS -v- Derby City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000289

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 October 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Najib,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
GS

-v-

Derby City Council

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

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

ORDER by HIS HONOUR JUDGE NAJIB sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the King’s Bench Division

  1. Pursuant to CPR r. 39.2(4) the Claimant is granted anonymity and is to be referred to as “GS”. The identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed outside of these proceedings. There shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant. This application shall be known and listed only as ‘GS v Derby City Council’. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with this order and/or the Court directs otherwise.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 21.2(3) the Claimant has permission to conduct these proceedings without the appointment of a Litigation Friend.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review is GRANTED on ground one (challenge to the Defendant’s decision as to the Claimant’s age as a matter of fact).
  4. Permission to apply for judicial review is REFUSED on ground two (public law challenges to the age assessment).
  5. The claim shall be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for determination of the Claimant’s age.
  6. The Upper Tribunal shall make directions for the future management of the claim.
  7. The application for interim relief shall be referred to a Judge of the Upper Tribunal for further consideration and/or directions as appropriate.
  8. Costs in the case.

REASONS

(i) There is a factual dispute as to whether the Claimant is a child or an adult. In the circumstances and erring on the side of caution, I am satisfied that non- disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and that there is no countervailing public interest in disclosure.

(ii) On the Claimant’s own account, he is aged 16.5 years. His Solicitors are satisfied that he is able to understand and consider any advice given to him and to give appropriate instructions. I am satisfied that he is able to conduct this claim without the need of a Litigation Friend.

(iii) Whilst permission to apply for judicial review does not fall to be granted simply because the Claimant asserts that the age assessment was wrong, in accordance with R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59, the material before the Court, in particular the Claimant’s witness statement and the photograph of his purported baptism certificate, raises a factual case which, taken at its highest, could properly succeed in a contested factual hearing.

(iv) I am not satisfied that the public law grounds of challenge are properly arguable. I do not consider it to be arguable that the Respondent failed to take into account relevant factors, failed to make sufficient enquiries or gave inadequate reasons. Nor do I consider it arguable that the assessment was procedurally unfair for the reasons given below and in the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence. The weight if any to be attached to the age assessment will be a matter for the Upper Tribunal as part of its fact finding exercise:

a. In R (HAM) v LB of Brent Swift J rejected the notion of a margin of error which needs to be applied.

b. What is required by way of reasonable investigation and fair process is dependent upon the particular circumstances. There is nothing inherently objectionable or unlawful about a local authority conducting a short-form assessment. It is not arguable on the facts of this case that there was a need to conduct a fuller age assessment.

c. It is not arguable that the social worker’s approach amounted to “pseudo-science”. They relied on their own face-to-face observations of, and interactions with, the Claimant and reached a conclusion based on his appearance and demeanour/behaviour – they were entitled to do on the facts of this case.

d. There was no requirement on the facts of this case for the social workers to engage in a detailed scrutiny of academic material and data.

e. The grounds criticise the social workers for having failed to explore the “significance of such cultural, ethnic and historical factors (such as working on a farm all his life)” on the Claimant’s appearance. Nowhere does the Claimant refer to having worked on a farm.

f. In R (HAM) v LB of Brent Swift J noted that “…the stage has not yet been reached when an interview conducted without the opportunity for an independent adult to be present will, without more, fail to comply with the legal requirement of fairness.” Each case must be considered on its own facts. In this case, the Claimant apparently presented with confident demeanour. The social workers’ handwritten notes record that the social workers checked how the Claimant felt – to which he responded that he felt “OK”. There is no suggestion from the Claimant or from anything recorded in the handwritten notes to indicate that the Claimant was having difficulty answering any of the questions asked of him or that he in any way had difficulty engaging with the process. There is therefore no indication that the absence of an appropriate adult had any impact at all on the Claimant’s ability to engage with the social workers.

g. The social workers found the Claimant to be an adult on the grounds of his physical appearance and demeanour. In the circumstances the absence of a minded to process did not render the assessment process unfair. Further I note that the record records that the Claimant was informed of the decision which the social workers were minded to make and it records that the Claimant had a chance to respond. The second page records that the Claimant sought to explain away his wrinkles in a section of the Brief Enquiry entitled “Response of the person subject to the Brief Enquiry to the Minded To decision”. It appears therefore that the social workers put their reasons about the Claimant’s physical appearance to the Claimant and that he had a chance to respond.

h. The social workers were not required on the facts of this case to enquire into identity documents which the Claimant had not produced.

(v) The Upper Tribunal is best placed to deal with the application for interim relief as it is best placed to know the time scales for the progress of the claim to a hearing to determine the Claimant’s age.

Signed: His Honour Judge Najib
Dated: 15 October 2025