NAN -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-004248

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 April 2025

Before:

Andrew Kinnier K.C.
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
NAN
(Claimant, by his litigation friend Erinc Argun Kayim)

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

and

Hertfordshire County Council
(Interested Party)

Order

On applications by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review; for permission to appoint a litigation friend, for an order granting anonymity and for disclosure of certain documents

And on an application by the Defendant for an extension of time for service of her Acknowledgement of Service

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

ORDER BY ANDREW KINNIER K.C.
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

In relation to the Claimant’s interlocutory applications: 

  1. Appointment of a litigation friend: Erinc Argun Kayim is appointed the Claimant’s litigation friend.

2. 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 “NAN”.

(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. Disclosure: There shall be no order for disclosure of the documents sought at para. 13 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and Grounds for Judicial Review.

The Defendant’s application

  1. Time for service of her Acknowledgement of Service is extended to 31 January 2025. 

Permission

  1. Adjournment of permission to a hearing:

(a) The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be determined after a hearing.

(b) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1 hour, 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.

(c) 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 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) Litigation friend: In light of the Claimant’s case that he is a minor, it is necessary and appropriate that there should be a litigation friend. Given that Ms Argun Kayim has filed a certificate of suitability that satisfies the requirements of CPR 21.5(3) and (4), an application was not unnecessary but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that the relevant requirements of CPR 21.6 were also met. There is no objection from the Defendant or the Interested Party to her acting as the Claimant’s litigation friend.

(2) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker whose case is that he is a minor. There is some evidence to suggest that he may also be a victim of modern slavery and is also vulnerable. The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(3) Disclosure: No disclosure is ordered because there is no reason to conclude at this stage that the Defendant will not fully comply with her duty of candour in relation to disclosure.

(4) Extension of time: The Defendant has given a good reason for the sought-for extension of time; the Acknowledgement of Service was served on 29 January 2025 and no prejudice would be suffered by the Claimant by allowing it who does not oppose the application.

(5) Adjournment of permission to a hearing: in light of the arguments set out in the Summary Grounds of Defence and absent a Reply, permission is best decided with the benefit of submissions at an oral hearing.

Signed: Andrew Kinnier K.C.

Date: 8 April 2025