KWL -v- West Northamptonshire Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM-000171

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 May 2026

Before:

HHJ Tindal
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
KWL
(Claimant)

-v-

West Northamptonshire Council
(Defendant)

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for expedition

After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a. No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as KWL.
    b. A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c. Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  2. Permission to the Claimant to proceed without a Litigation Friend.
  3. The Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service by 22nd May 2026.
  4. The Claimant may file a Reply by 29th May 2026.
  5. Costs in the Case

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is an Iranian national who left Iran and arrived in the UK without leave in January 2026. He claims to be 17: born in October 2008, although it is fair to say he was rather vague in his interview about his birth date. The Home Office assessed him as an adult, as did the Defendant in the standard-form decision on 28th January 2026. This followed an interview with an appropriate adult by the Defendant’s social workers who assessed his age as being in his early 20s based not only on the Claimant’s appearance (which to my eyes judging by the photograph is equivocal), but also his confident presentation but inconsistent responses.
  2. The Defendant’s decision is challenged on the usual grounds – public law unreasonableness but also precedent fact, with transfer sought to the Upper Tribunal for judicial age assessment. Nio interim relief is sought.
  3. Given the Claimant is at least 17 but says he is struggling in adult accommodation, I will anonymise him and expedite the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service, but I dispense with a Litigation Friend.

Signed: HHJ Tindal