August 18, 2026

MLM -v- Ealing London Borough Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002700

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

17 August 2026

Before:

Alan Bates,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
MLM
(Claimant)

-v-

Ealing London Borough Council
(Defendant)

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Interested Party)

Order

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

Following consideration of:

the documents lodged by the Claimant (including his application for interim relief made on Form N463, and his application notice dated 27 July 2026 seeking permission for the Claimant to bring these proceedings without a Litigation Friend); and
the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds, and response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief

ORDER BY ALAN BATES, SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Anonymity / Reporting restrictions:

(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 name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ”MLM”.

(b) Pursuant to section 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) 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; and

(ii) 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.

Permission for the Claimant to conduct these proceedings without a Litigation Friend: For the avoidance of doubt, in case the Claimant’s true age is less than 18 years, he is granted permission, pursuant to CPR r.21.2(3), to conduct these proceedings without a litigation friend.
Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Interim relief: For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant’s application for interim relief is dismissed.
Costs: No order for costs.
Further provision as to costs:

(a) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, a party may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) setting out submissions as to why the provision as to costs in paragraph 5 should not be made.

(b) If no party files and serves a notice of objection within that period, then paragraph 5 is a final order.

(i) the costs order at paragraph 5 will not become a final order (unless the objection is withdrawn);

(ii) the other party (the “Responding Party”) may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);

(iii) if the Responding Party files and serves on the party that filed the notice of objection (“the Objecting Party”) submissions in response, the Objecting Party may, within 7 days after the date on which the Responding Party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);

(iv) if the Claimant has made a valid request for reconsideration of permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below) which is not subsequently withdrawn, then the costs order at paragraph 5 shall be considered at the hearing at which the Claimant’s request for reconsideration of permission is determined by the Court;

(v) otherwise, the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers.

(d) Any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration of his application for permission to apply for judicial review at an oral hearing (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.

(b) Within 14 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 12 pages (12 point font, 1.5 lines spacing);

(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 4 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 (12 point font, 1.5 lines spacing).

(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) The Claimant’s judicial review claim challenges the Defendant’s age assessment decision dated 4 March 2026 by which the Defendant decided that the Claimant was an adult, not a minor child.

(2) Border Force officials who encountered the Claimant when he arrived in the UK in January 2026 assigned him a date of birth in February 2002, reflecting their initial assessment of the Claimant’s age as being around 24 years old. Subsequently, on 4 March 2026, the Defendant carried out an age assessment, which concluded that the Claimant was an adult and again assigned him a date of birth in February 2002.

(3) Anonymisation / Reporting restrictions: Strictly for the purpose of considering whether to grant the Claimant’s application for anonymisation in these proceedings, I have assumed, in his favour, that he may be under 18 years of age. (I note that, although I have refused permission to apply for judicial review, he could potentially renew his application for permission.) Further, he has been granted refugee status. In all the circumstances, I am prepared to accept that granting him anonymisation is a proportionate incursion upon the open justice principle.

(4) Permission for the Claimant to conduct these proceedings without a Litigation Friend: If the Claimant is over 18 years of age, he does not need a Litigation Friend. In case he is under 18, however, I have granted permission for him to conduct the proceedings without a Litigation Friend, given the evidence from his solicitor as to the Claimant’s ability to understand the proceedings and give instructions.

(5) Permission to apply for judicial review: I have refused permission because, in my view, neither of the Claimant’s grounds of challenge has a realistic prospect of success.

(6) As to Ground 1:

(a) The Defendant’s age assessment was not, in my view, materially affected by any unfairness in procedure. The Claimant had the benefit of an interpreter and was given a fair opportunity to respond to the points ultimately relied on by the Defendant for supporting the conclusion it ultimately reached.

(b) The Claimant had been assessed by Border Force officers who encountered him as being an adult and assigned a date of birth which would make him around 24 years of age. He was then formally age-assessed by the Defendant, which confirmed that assigned date of birth. Having considered the photo of the Claimant which is in the bundle, that estimate of his age appears to me to be consistent with his physical appearance. It is, of course, necessary to treat physical indicators with a degree of caution, given that people who have endured harsh conditions of life may look older than a person who has not endured such conditions. The reality is, however, that all available objective indicators point to the Claimant being an adult. There is no documentary or other objective evidence to support his claim to be 16 years of age.

(c) The only ‘evidence’ that he is under 18 is that he says he has been told by two different members of his family in Sudan that his date of birth was a date in 2010 – but, notably, those family members have each told him different dates in that year. Even if the Claimant is himself entirely honest and credible, his family members may simply be mistaken about his date of birth; and they have apparently been unable to provide him with any documentary evidence to show that he was born in 2010.

(d) Taking together all the available evidence that was before the Defendant when the challenged decision was being taken, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of this Court (or the Upper Tribunal, if these proceedings were transferred there) setting aside the conclusion reached, on behalf of the Defendant, by individuals with relevant experience and training, that the Claimant is an adult, not a child.

(7) As I see no realistic basis for the Claimant’s challenge to the age assessment decision, it follows that Ground 2 (which challenges the Defendant’s ‘failure’ to provide the Claimant with support to which he would have been entitled if he was a child) is likewise bound to fail.

(8) Interim relief: As I have refused permission to apply for judicial review, there is no basis for granting interim relief.

(9) The Claimant has been granted refugee status and can seek assistance from the local authority as a homeless adult.

(10) Costs: The Defendant has asked, in its Acknowledgment of Service, for its costs, but has not filed a Statement of Costs as required by The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide. In any event, as the Claimant has been granted Legal Aid, it is unlikely that a costs order would be enforceable. In the circumstances, I do not consider it proportionate to provide for a process by which the Court would now invite the Defendant to provide information for facilitating a summary assessment of its costs. I therefore exercise my discretion so as to make no order for costs.

Signed: DHCJ Alan Bates

Date: 17 August 2026