May 1, 2026

KID -v- London Borough of Ealing (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002015

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

30 April 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

The King
on the application of
KID

-v-

London Borough of Ealing

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:

Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “KID”.

(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.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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.

Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:

(a) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for interim relief/directions by 12pm on 5 May 2026.

(b) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant interim relief immediately thereafter.

Costs reserved.

REASONS

Anonymity: The Claimant is a refugee who claims to be a young person of 18 years of age and suffering from some physical and mental vulnerabilities. I am satisfied that there are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:
(1)The Claimant is an Eritrean national who arrived in the UK on 29 September 2025. He claimed asylum. Upon arrival he was assessed to be an adult. He received a short-form age assessment by the Defendant’s social services department on 24 October 2025. He claimed to be 17 years old, with a DOB of 27 March 2008. He was assessed to be 22 years old, with a DOB of 27 March 2003.

(2) On 20 January 2026, the Claimant’s solicitors wrote a letter before action to the Defendant challenging the legality of the age assessment. The Defendant’s response on 27 January 2026 was to offer to undertake a fresh assessment. Following that fresh assessment, on 16 March 2026 the Defendant maintained its assessment of the Claimant’s age as 22 years old (DOB 27/03/2003).

(3) On 23 March 2026, the Claimant’s solicitor sent a letter before action in relation to that decision, asserting that the Defendant was required to provide support to the Claimant under the Children Act 1989 on the basis that he was a former child (i.e. about to pass his 18th birthday). On 31 March 2026 the Defendant responded rejecting the proposed grounds of challenge to its age assessment and declining to accept that it was required to provide services to the Claimant as an 18 year old under the 1989 Act.

(4) Meanwhile, on 11 March 2026 the Home Office informed the Claimant that his asylum claim had been successful and that he had permission to stay in the UK until 10 March 2031. He was advised that his asylum support would end 42 days after receipt of that letter. He was now entitled to apply for benefits. He was advised to contact his local authority if he needed support in finding somewhere to live.

(5) On 23 April 2026 the Claimant filed his claim for judicial review of the Defendant’s age assessment carried out on 16 March 2026. On the same day the Claimant filed an application for interim relief requiring the Defendant “to forthwith accommodate and support the Claimant pursuant to s23C(4) Children Act 1989”.

(6) The claim and application notice were issued today (30 April 2026). The Claimant has also made this application for urgent interim relief, on the grounds that (i) he is living with a host family following withdrawal of his asylum accommodation; (ii) the host family has agreed to continue that support until 5 May 2026; (iii) he has no alternative accommodation and support at his disposal thereafter; (iv) in pre-action correspondence the Defendant has refused the provision of interim support pending resolution of his JR claim; and (vi) after 5 May 2026 he will become street homeless and suffer irreparable harm due to his vulnerable physical and mental state.

(7) There is no evidence before the court that the Claimant has approached the Defendant for housing support since the end of March 2026. The Defendant has clearly yet to be served with the claim for judicial review. The question whether the Defendant is eligible for housing support from 6 May onwards is a matter for the Defendant to determine in the exercise of its functions under the Housing Act 1996. That is presently unaffected by the Claimant’s challenge to the Defendant’s age assessment, since that assessment stands unless and until found to be unlawful following determination of the JR claim.

(8) There is urgency in this case, because the Claimant is at risk of becoming homeless after 5 May 2026. It is the Defendant, whether in its capacity as housing authority, social services authority or both, which is able to provide the Claimant with at least short term temporary accommodation. Although time is short, I consider that the Defendant should be afforded the opportunity to consider whether it should now arrange accommodation support for the Claimant, in the circumstances as they now are (which have moved on from those which existed in late March 2026).

(9) I have decided, therefore, to direct that this application be placed before a judge for further consideration early next week. That will allow the Defendant some time to consider its position and to communicate its response both to the Claimant and to the court by noon on 5 May. The Defendant should therefore give this matter priority on 1 May.

Signed: Mr Justice Mould
Dated: 30 April 2026