August 5, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001748

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 August 2026

Before:

Richard Wright KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
LOC
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Hounslow
(Defendant)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY RICHARD WRIGHT KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) he 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 LOC.

(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 a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;

(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.

The Claimant’s application for an extension of time in which to file his detailed statement of facts and grounds and evidence in support of his claim is granted.
Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
No order as to costs.
Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) I am satisfied that the limited derogation from the principle of open justice in Paragraph 1 of this order is necessary given the Claimant’s status as an asylum seeker who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child.

(2) The application for an extension of time was made promptly, was not contested and is therefore granted.

(3) The Claimant is an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who arrived in the United Kingdom on 12th June 2024. This claim relates to an age assessment conducted by the Defendant which concluded on 7th January 2026 with the determination that the Claimant is between 23 and 25 years of age, with a determined date of birth of 1st October 2000. The Claimant, accepts that he is now over 18, but claims that his date of birth is in fact 1st October 2007. The Claimant contends that he was a child when he arrived in the United Kingdom and that he is entitled to the support of the Defendant under the leaving care provisions of the Children Act 1989. He seeks both permission and interim relief ordering the Defendant to provide him with that support.

(4) The heads of challenge are grouped under the umbrella submission that the Defendant came to the wrong factual conclusion about age. It is said that the Defendant was wrong to reject the Claimant’s account, failed to have proper regard to documents, failed to take proper account of third party opinions and that the age assessment itself displayed weak reasoning that would not stand up to scrutiny in a contested hearing.

(5) The Defendant rejects the challenge to the age assessment and points out that the Claimants own account has varied significantly affecting his credibility, the documents were not conclusive and were properly considered but were ultimately of minimal support for his claimed age even when read with the expert opinions, third party opinions were considered but are inherently subjective and not determinative, and the age assessment was carried out by trained professionals with great care over six meetings to reach a well reasoned conclusion.

(6) I have considered the competing arguments against the test articulated in R(FZ) v Croydon:

“…the court should ask whether the material before the court raises a factual case which, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed in a contested factual hearing. If so, permission should be refused. If not, permission should
normally be granted, subject to other discretionary factors, such as delay.”

(7) I am satisfied that the material does raise a factual case that even taken at its highest could not properly succeed in a factual hearing. The age assessment conducted here was undertaken with care and considered all relevant matters and came to a detailed and well-reasoned conclusion. In my view the Defendant’s opposition to all elements of the challenge is well founded. I am not satisfied that the claim is arguable and permission is refused.

(8) Given my decision on permission the application for interim relief must fall away. However, even if I had granted permission I would have refused the application. There is sparse evidence of the Claimant’s need for Children Act support beyond the assertion that he is entitled to it. That falls well short of establishing that the balance of convenience dictates that the relief should be granted.

(9) I note that the Defendant’s summary grounds referred to provision for costs. However no costs schedule has been provided to the Court and I make no order.

Signed: Richard Wright KC

Date: 5th August 2026