August 22, 2022

HS -v- London Borough of Southwark (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court Queen's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case No: CO/2933/2022

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

19 August 2022

Before:

David Lock QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The Queen on the application of
HS

-v-

London Borough of Southwark

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by David Lock QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:

1. The Claimant shall be referred as HS in these proceedings.
2. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, no person other than a party to these proceedings or a person acting under the authority of the Court may inspect or take copies of any document on the Court file unless duly authorised to do so by an order made by a Judge of the High Court following an application which has been made on notice to each of the parties to these proceedings.
3. Pursuant to CPR 39.2, no publication of the hearing or the judgement in this case shall identify the Claimant as being the person to whom these proceedings relate.
4. The application to abridge time for service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds to 14 days is refused; the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds shall be served by 2 September 2022.
5. The Defendant shall file a statement of its response to the application for interim relief by 2 September 2022, together with any evidence upon which it relies.
6. This matter shall, if possible, be referred to a Judge for consideration of permission and interim relief in the week commencing 5 September 2022.
7. Costs reserved.

Reasons

1. The Claimant challenges the Defendant’s age assessment and, as the Claimant now accepts that he has reached the age of 18, seeks interim relief to require the Defendant to treat the Claimant as a former relevant child.
2. It is appropriate that the Claimant be anonymised and I make orders to that effect.
3. If permission is given, it seems likely that this case will be heard in the Upper Tribunal. However, the Defendant must be given time to respond before any decision is made on permission or interim relief. I calculate the 21 day period under CPR 54.8 expires on 2 September. I am not prepared to abridge time because this falls within a holiday period and the Claimant is now 18. However the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds shall be served by 2 September and, in order to ensure that the issues are considered promptly, I hope that there will be sufficient judicial capacity so that the question of permission and interim relief can be decided by a Judge on paper during the following week.