HMS -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003690

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

27 February 2026

Before:

Hugo Keith KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HMS

-v-

LONDON BOROUGH OF HOWNSLOW

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, including the Application of 17 October 2025 for anonymity, expedition and interim relief and the Application of 25 November 2025 to file a Reply out of time, and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance

IT IS ORDERED by Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, that

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  2. The application for interim relief is refused.
  3. An order for anonymity is made:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    i. the name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public, or to any person who is not a party to these proceedings; and
    ii. the Claimant is to be referred to as HMS.
    (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 his identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case or any other document filed with the Court, including the Confidential Schedule, from the court records only if they have been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
    (d) Any non-party wishing to obtain or inspect documents in the case must do so by making an application to the Court, to be served on both parties, on 48 hours’ notice.
  4. The claim is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) for an age assessment fact-finding hearing to be convened.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

  1. The Claimant is a national of Sudan. He grew up in Kebkabiya, Sudan but moved to a refugee camp around 2022 due to the threat posed by the Janjaweed armed militia group. He states that, on 20 June 2023, he fled Sudan aged 15 with friends due to the growing risk of harm from the Janjaweed. He arrived in the UK by small boat on 4 March 2024, and was initially placed in adult accommodation. He was then accommodated in child accommodation pending the outcome of an age assessment.
  2. On 29 January 2025, following a number of age assessment meetings conducted by social workers, the Defendant concluded that the Claimant was 21 years old with a date of birth of 20/08/2004. The Claimant contends that he has a date of birth of 20/08/2008 and is able to produce his Sudanese ID document to that effect. On 7 July 2025 his solicitors submitted new evidence illustrating that the social media accounts which the Defendant had relied on were not the Claimant’s accounts.
  3. On 21 July 2025 the Defendant concluded that the age assessment remained unchanged and, on 25 September 2025, the Claimant made further representations with a supporting witness statement. On 8 October 2025 the Defendant maintained the original decision.
  4. By a claim form received in the ACO on 24 October 2025, and issued the same day, the Claimant challenges the Defendant’s assessment of 29 January 2025. The relief sought by the Claimant includes anonymity, urgent consideration, interim relief and, if permission is granted, transfer to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing.
  5. Given that the claim form was lodged within 3 months of the Defendant’s decision of 8 October 2025 to maintain the age assessment, notwithstanding the fresh evidence served on 7 July 2025 and 25 September 2025, it is not out of time. Even had I not regarded this decision as a fresh decision, I would have extended time, given the change in the Claimant’s legal representatives in May 2025, the fact that further evidence was filed, which led to the Defendant maintaining its decision, and the fact that the Claimant has now received a positive NRM reasonable grounds decision.
  6. The basis of the Claimant’s challenge to the age assessment is that it is factually wrong. I cannot conclude that “the material before the court raises a factual case which, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed in a contested hearing” (R (FZ) v Croydon at §9). The claim, though finely balanced, is arguable. Permission is granted.
  7. The application for interim relief is refused. In balancing the evaluation of the risk of injustice in circumstances where the Claimant continues to be dealt with as an adult alongside adults but is subsequently vindicated by being found to have been a child, as against the risk of injustice to the local authority (including resource implications) if an interim order is made but the local authority is subsequently vindicated, and the claimant was an adult all along, I do not think that interim relief is appropriate, taking into account the fact that this is a finely balanced case on the merits, the risk attendant upon the Claimant being accommodated with children, and that there is no suggestion that the Claimant is particularly vulnerable or has suffered any hardship other than the loneliness and mental stress that is typical for any young asylum seeker.
  8. Given the Claimant’s contentions to the effect that he is a putative unaccompanied young person, and the fact that his asylum claim is pending, I make an order for anonymity.