HDW -v- West Northamptonshire County Council (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-BHM-000071

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division

 9 February 2026

Before:

Her Honour Judge Carmel Wall

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HDW

-v-

West Northamptonshire County Council

Order

On considering the Claimant’s application dated 9 February 2026

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE CARMEL WALL SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Extension of time: The time for bringing the claim is extended to the date on which it was filed and relief from sanctions is granted accordingly. The time for service is to be calculated from the date of this Order.
  2. 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 HDW.
    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.
  3. Litigation Friend: The application to dispense with a Litigation Friend is granted. In the event the Claimant’s solicitors are no longer able to take sufficiently detailed instructions from the Claimant such that a Litigation Friend becomes necessary, they must notify the Court forthwith.
  4. Interim relief: The application for interim relief is to be considered in the event permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  5. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) (to include a response to the application for interim relief) must be filed and served within 14 days of service of the claim.
    b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served within 3 days thereafter.
    c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge as soon as possible thereafter for consideration of permission, interim relief and further directions (if appropriate).
  6. Costs: Reserved.
  7. This Order has been made without a hearing. Any person affected may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of service of this Order upon them.

REASONS

  1. Extension of time: The decision sought to be challenged was made on 23 October 2025. The claim filed on 20 February 2026 is therefore out of time. I am satisfied it is just to extend time so that the claim can proceed for these reasons, applying the Denton v White (relief from sanctions) framework:
    a) The breach is serious; and
    b) The reasons for delay are understandable though do not amount to a good reason. The Claimant was not aware of his right to apply to challenge the age assessment for some time. Ignorance of legal rights is not a “good reason” for delay albeit it provides an explanation. The additional delay caused by the Claimant’s solicitors applying for funding and attempting to negotiate with the Defendant has added to the delay. Again, these steps do not quite meet the threshold for a “good reason”; but
    c) All the circumstances support the exercise of discretion in favour of the Claimant:
    i) The Claimant has not deliberately delayed (for the reasons set out above);
    ii) The subject matter of the claim is important and is closely related to the delay – if the Claimant is, as he claims, an asylum-seeking child then he cannot reasonably be expected to comply with strict time limits;
    iii) The delay in obtaining funding is not the fault of the Claimant;
    iv) The Claimant’s solicitors have attempted to engage with the Defendant to resolve matters without litigation. There has been no substantive response to their pre-action protocol letter and no voluntary disclosure thus far. The extent of delay has not caused any obvious prejudice to the Defendant.
  2. Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and asserts that he is a child. Until the issue of his age has been determined it is appropriate to proceed on the assumption he is a child.  The claim is likely to include personal matters regarding the Claimant’s immigration status, personal background and means. These are matters in respect of which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Taken together there are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  3. Litigation Friend: I dispense with the requirement for a Litigation Friend for the Claimant because:
    a) The Claimant on his own account is now aged 17;
    b) His solicitors say they have been able to take detailed instructions from him. The directions I have made provide for a contingency if this situation changes;
    c) There is no obvious person available to take on the role of Litigation Friend.
  4. Interim relief: The Claimant’s application asks for this to be considered if permission is granted and I am satisfied in any event that interim relief should not be considered before the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond to the application and claim.  The Claimant’s witness statement confirms that he is safe and does have accommodation, albeit in a setting suitable for adults and with adults. There is no medical evidence to show that the Claimant has physical or mental health needs that are not being met by his accommodation, at least in the short term.
  5. Abridgement of time/expedition: The Claimant is a national of Sudan. He is an asylum seeker who entered the UK on 21 October 2025. He asserts he is a child, born on 1 January 2009. If correct, he is entitled to support pursuant to the Children Act 1989 including the provision of suitable accommodation and education. He challenges the Defendant’s age assessment made on 23 October 2025 by which he has been determined to be an adult. The effect of the age assessment is that the Claimant is being denied the support to which he would be entitled if, as he claims, he is a child. Expedition is therefore justified at this stage to ensure that permission is considered swiftly because any prejudice that proves to have been caused to the Claimant by delay cannot be compensated for. The directions for abridgement of time for the Acknowledgement of Service and Reply strike a balance between the need for expedition and the right of the Defendant to be heard.