HS -v- Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order


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

30 September 2022


HHJ Lambert

In the matter of an application for judicial review

The King
on the application of HS (a putative child)
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council


UPON the Claimant’s application for interim relief and directions

AND UPON consideration of the facts and grounds of claim and bundle filed

ORDER by His Honour Judge Lambert sitting as a judge of the High Court.

IT IS ORDERED THAT pursuant to CPR rule 21.2(3) the Claimant, who states that he is a child aged 16, is permitted to conduct proceedings without a litigation friend

(1) The Claimant shall be afforded anonymity, to be referred to as “HS”. The identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed outside 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.
(2) Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as HS; and (b) that any identifying reference to the Claimant be deleted from those documents;
(3) The Defendant shall treat the Claimant as a child, pending the completion of its intended age assessment; and shall forthwith (and in any event by 4pm on 22 October 2022) secure that the Claimant is accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989. Such arrangements for provision of accommodation, care and support are to be maintained until either a. 14 days after notification to the Claimant’s solicitor of the completion of any final conclusion as to age determined by the Defendant said to show the Claimant to be an adult or b. earlier Order of the Court.
(4) The requirement for an Acknowledgment of Service is dispensed with.
(5) The Defendant shall within 14 days of the date of this Order file and serve such Summary Grounds of Defence as it wishes to rely upon.
(6) Liberty on 3 days’ notice in writing by email to the Court and to the parties to apply to set aside or vary this Order.
(7) Costs in the case.


  1. Something has gone badly wrong after the first judicial review concerning this matter was compromised. This is made worse by the fact that the papers were referred to a judge only today 30 September 2022 to determine an urgent application for interim relief.
  2. The order of the court on 25 May 2022 determined there was a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience or least risk of injustice dictates interim relief should be granted.
  3. Nothing appears to have changed, apart from that order apparently being ignored. Whilst it is unusual to grant interim relief without some sort of response from the defendant I have done so because a previous invitation to respond was ignored and there appears to be non-compliance with a court order.