NAY -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003159

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

27 April 2026

Before:

Richard Wright KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
NAY

-v-

Hampshire County Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY RICHARD WRIGHT 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 NAY.

(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. The Claimant’s application to dispense with a litigation friend is granted pursuant to CPR21.2(3).
  2. The Claimant’s application to admit the second witness statement of Stuart Raymond Luke together with exhibit SRL1 is granted.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. The application for interim relief is refused.
  5. No order as to costs.

REASONS

(1) The applications for anonymity and to dispense with a litigation friend are not opposed by the Defendant. The Claim is brought on the basis that the Claimant is a 15-year-old child and I am satisfied that the limited derogation from the open justice principle in Paragraph 1 of this order is appropriate.

(2) In the light of the explanation provided by the Claimant as to the timing of the service of the report of Mr Vermar I am not persuaded by the Defendant’s arguments about a lack of candour. There is no prejudice to the Defendant in allowing the Claimant to rely upon this material.

(3) I do not consider that the Claim for Judicial Review has been brought promptly and refuse permission on that basis. The Claimant arrived in the United Kingdom on 5th June 2024. The age assessment now complained about took place on 20th and 23rd August 2024. The challenge has not been brought promptly in accordance with CPR54.1 and the Administrative Court Guide. The challenge came almost two months after the Defendant’s response to new evidence and almost a year after the age assessment.

(4) In any event I do not consider any of the grounds to be arguable. The Claimant’s factual case, taken at its highest could not properly succeed in a contested hearing. There is no compelling documentary evidence to support the Claimant’s purported age, and his own account is factually inconsistent and the Defendant was perfectly entitled to reject it. I do not accept that the new documents materially affect that conclusion. I do not consider that the arguments about procedural unfairness are factually well founded. Viewed as a whole the process was not arguably unfair, the Claimant accepted that he understood the interpreter, the questions were not, as alleged, all closed. To the contrary a mix of closed and open questions were asked.

(5) Although the Defendant has applied for costs no schedule of costs has been filed and no figure for costs provided.

Signed: Richard Wright KC

Date: 27th April 2026