LPD -v- London Borough of Brent (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

AMENDED UNDER SLIP RULE as approved by DHCJ David Pittaway on 10th August 2026

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001776

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 August 2026
AMENDED UNDER SLIP RULE

Before:

David Pittaway KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
LPD
(Claimant)

-v-

London Borough of Brent
(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 DAVID PITTAWAY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. 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. 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 LDP LPD.

(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.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

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.

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  2. Evidence: Permission is granted to rely upon the report of Dr Boucher dated 29 May 2026.
  3. Interim Relief: Application for interim relief is granted. Pending the determination of the Claimant’s age by the Upper Tribunal or further order, the Defendant shall provide him with support under Section 23C of the Children Act 1989.
  4. Transfer: Pursuant to Section 31A(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the claim is transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) for the factual determination of the Claimant’s age.
  5. Directions: The Upper Tribunal shall give consequential directions for the future management and hearing of the claim
  6. Costs:. Costs in the case.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Notwithstanding the submissions made on behalf of the defendant, I have transferred this case to the Upper Tribunal for age assessment. I am satisfied that the threshold has been met for that exercise to take place. I am not satisfied that there is any merit in the defendant’s submissions that this claim was made out of time, in circumstances where the previous claim was settled on the basis of a consent order, which has not been complied with.

(2) Having considered the claimant’s witness statement and Dr Boucher’s letter, I am also satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to grant interim relief. I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience lies with providing the claimant with the support he clearly needs under section 23C of the Children Act 1989 until the Upper Tribunal determines his age or further order. On his own case he is 20 years old living in unsatisfactory accommodation and suffering from mental health issues.

Signed: DAVID PITTAWAY KC