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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-000649

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

6 July 2026

Before:

Vikram Sachdeva KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
KCK
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Hounslow
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

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

ORDER BY VIKRAM SACHDEVA KC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. Anonymity.
    (a)
    1) The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
    2) The claimant is permitted to issue these proceedings naming the claimant as KCK (“the cipher”) and giving an address c/o the claimant’s solicitors, Bindmans LLP, 236 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB.
    3) There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
    (b) Pursuant to s.11 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):
    (a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant.
    (b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C) (6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  2. Extension of time. The Claimant is given permission, if required, to extend time for the valid issuing of this claim from 27 June 2025 and 16 October 2025.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  4. Interim Relief. Interim relief is refused.
  5. Transfer. The case is transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
  6. Expert evidence. The Claimant’s application to rely on expert evidence is adjourned for consideration by the Upper Tribunal.
  7. Costs. Costs in the case.
  8. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) The claimant is an asylum seeker and anonymity is strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.

(2) The claim is arguable on all grounds and will be transferred to the Upper Tribunal.

(3) There is a good reason to extend time. The decision dated 10 December 2025 declines to reassess, and retains its decision that the Claimant’s date of birth is 14 September 2003. The decision expressly states that the Claimant has the right to challenge the decision (ie as to the date of birth) within 3 months of receiving the letter (more accurately, it would be within 3 months of the decision being taken). On that basis, an extension of time is not required, but if it is required, I grant it, because the Defendant has represented that the decision could be challenged within 3 months of the latest decision and apparently previously represented that any later decision would consolidate earlier decisions and time would start running from the consolidated decision.

(4) I am not persuaded that the balance of convenience favours the grant of interim relief given that the Claimant is already 18 even on his own case, and also given the delay in issuing proceedings (and seeking interim relief) and the extent of the dispute over the merits.

(5) The question of expert evidence is best considered by the Upper Tribunal.

Signed: VIKRAM SACHDEVA KC
Date: 6 July 2026