MD -v- Luton Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/2123/2023

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

12 July 2023


Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The King on the application of


Luton Borough Council


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The application for an anonymity order pursuant to r39.2(4) CPR is granted.
    a. There be substituted for all purposes in this action, in place of reference to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the letters “MD”.
    b. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C a person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of pleadings, a Judgment or Order from the Court records only if the pleadings, Judgment or Order has been anonymised such that the Claimant is referred to as MD in those documents and his address has been removed.
    c. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. In particular, disclosure of the Claimant’s name or address is prohibited
  2. The application for an Order pursuant to CPR 21.2(3) dispensing with the
    need for a litigation friend is granted.
  3. The Defendant must by 4 pm on 19 July 2023 support and accommodate the Claimant pursuant to ss. 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 until trial or further order.

    This is a mandatory injunction. Breach of paragraph 1 this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 2 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 3 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.
  4. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  5. The claim is transferred to be heard before the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) Chamber.


  1. The anonymity order is granted because it is appropriate in circumstances where the Claimant is a putative unaccompanied young person with an outstanding asylum claim.
  2. The Claimant is 17 years old on his account, due to turn 18 in December this year. The Claimant’s solicitor has spoken with the Claimant to ascertain whether it is appropriate to make an application to dispense with the need for a litigation friend. Having done so, his solicitor is satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to issue the claim without a litigation friend. This includes an understanding of the position he is in, and an ability to weigh up advice offered and provide appropriate instructions.
  3. A mandatory injunction is granted on the basis that there are triable issues, the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction and such an order is in the public interests. A flexible approach to the consideration of merits of the claim in the context of an application for mandatory injunctions has been applied in age assessment cases R(AS v Liverpool City Council [2020] EWHC 3531 (Admin)) where Nicol J held that there is “no hard and fast rule” that the Claimant show a strong prima facie case, but that this is a factor to be taken into account in the balance of convenience. See also R ( AXA) v London Borough of Hackney [2021] EWHC 1345 and R (MA) v Liverpool City Council [2023] EWHC 359 (Admin).
    a. In my judgment Claimant has demonstrated there are triable issues such that I propose to grant him permission.
    b. As a putative unaccompanied young person with an outstanding asylum claim, the balance of convenience and the public interest weighs in favour of granting the Claimant interim relief.