Master Zo -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2025-LON-003339
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
6 October 2025
Before:
Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Between:
The King
on the application of
Master Zo
(a child, by his litigation friend, Afnan Khalid of the Refugee Council)
-v-
London Borough of Hounslow
Order
On an application by the Claimant for (i) interim relief within 7 days; (ii) an order appointing Ms Afnan Khalid of the Refugee Council as the Claimant’s litigation friend under CPR 21.6; (iii) anonymity for the Claimant under CPR 39.2(4) as he is a putative child and subject of a pending international protection claim, using the cipher ‘COS’.; (iv) permission to the Claimant to rely on his evidence in a witness statement dated 22 September 2025 and of his litigation friend dated 22 September 2025; (v) an interim order for the Defendant to treat the Claimant as a putative child aged 17 pending the final conclusion of these proceedings or until further order, and to secure that that the Claimant is provided with accommodation, care and support pursuant to s.20 Children Act 1989 within 7 days of the date of the order; and (vi) an order for expedition as set out that the Acknowledgment of Service is to be filed and served within 7 days; any reply to be filed and served within 5 days and for the application for permission to be put to a judge promptly after 13 days.
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON 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) 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 Master Zo.
(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.
The appointment of a litigation friend
- An order is made appointing Ms Afnan Khalid of the Refugee Council as the Claimant’s litigation friend under CPR 21.6;
Permission to the Claimant to rely on further evidence
- Permission is granted to the Claimant to rely on his evidence in a witness statement dated 22 September 2025 and of his litigation friend dated 22 September 2025.
The Mandatory injunction
- An interim order is granted
(a) for the Defendant to treat the Claimant as a putative child aged 17 pending the final conclusion of these proceedings or until further order, and to secure that that the Claimant is provided with accommodation, care and support pursuant to s.20 Children Act 1989 within 7 days of the date of the order; and
(b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.
THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE
5. Abridgement of time and further directions:
(a) The Defendant must serve and file its submissions and/or its Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) no later than 4pm on 13 October 2025.
(b) Any Reply from the Claimant (CPR 54.8A) must be filed and served by [4pm on 15 October 2025.
(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge [immediately thereafter to fix a 2 hour hearing listed for 23 October 2025.
REASONS
(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an unaccompanied asylum-seeker from Afghanistan. With his given date of birth being 31 March 2008, making him 17 years old. In my view an order should be granted because he is a putative child and as the subject of a pending international protection claim
(2) The appointment of a litigation friend: An order is made appointing Ms Afnan Khalid of the Refugee Council as the Claimant’s litigation friend under CPR 21.6, having regard to his witness statement.
(3) Permission to the Claimant to rely on further evidence: Permission is granted to the Claimant to rely on his evidence in a witness statement dated 22 September 2025 and of his litigation friend dated 22 September 2025, having regard to their respective witness statements,.
(4) Mandatory injunction:
a. The Claimant is a 17-year-old unaccompanied asylum seeking child. He is a Pashto speaking Afghan. In his witness statement, he explains that he came to know his date of birth when his father took him to obtain a Taskira at 12 years of age. As set out in the Claimant’s witness statement, the Claimant endured an incredibly long and traumatic journey from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. This journey spanned approximately three to four years, mostly via foot and car, often sleeping rough exposed to the elements, without access to bathing, laundry or medical facilities.
b. He arrived in the UK on 28 August 2024 and was assessed at the border as being 26 years old. The Home Office conducted an age assessment on 20 December 2024 concluding that the Claimant is in his mid-twenties. The Home Office provided him with asylum support accommodation at various hotels and since September 2024, he has resided at an Ibis hotel in Hounslow. C lives with adults and receives no assistance or education. He suffers from low mood, recurrent nightmares and suicidal thoughts.
c. The Claimant has submitted fresh evidence including an original copy of his Taskira and an expert report of Dr Zadeh. His claim rests on Defendant’s failure/refusal/undue delay in undertaking a reassessment of his age and the Defendant’s failure to provide appropriate support in respect of age- appropriate accommodation and mental health support.
d. In considering interim relief I have had particular regard to the fact that the test for granting permission was established by the Court of Appeal is to 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. Otherwise permission should be granted (R (FZ) v London Borough of Croydon [2011] EWCA Civ 59).
e. Furthermore, when considering whether to grant an injunction, there was no hard and fast rule that a claimant in an age assessment case had to show a strong prima facie case rather than simply a triable issue, even though the relief sought might be characterised as a mandatory injunction, but that characterisation was one factor which could properly be taken into account in assessing the balance of convenience (R((AS) v Liverpool City Council [2020] EWHC 3531 (Admin).
f. The Claimant advances the following grounds:
i. There has been an unlawful and irrational failure, refusal or undue delay to undertake a reassessment of C’s age in light of new relevant evidence includes the original Taskira with an English translation accompanied by expert reports verifying its authenticity. He submits the evidence shows that the Claimant may be notably younger than initially assessed and so a new assessment should be undertaken. He contends that it is difficult to conceive of more compelling evidence than an original Taskira accompanied by two expert reports verifying its authentic.
ii. It is further submitted that in the circumstances the Defendant’s failure to provide appropriate support, pending the outcome of the reassessment, namely in respect of age-appropriate accommodation and mental health support is unlawful.
iii. In my judgment the grounds meet American Cyanamid grounds as modified by the public interest and I have concluded that there are serious issues to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the Claimant.
Abridgement of time and further directions:
g. In my judgment the circumstances warrant making the directions I have ordered.
Signed: DHCJ Richard Clayton
Date: 06/10/2025