NS -v- Essex County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1420/2023

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

21 July 2023


His Honour Judge Jarman KC sitting as a judge of the High Court


The King on the application of


Essex County 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 His Honour Judge Jarman KC sitting as a judge of the High Court

  1. The Claimant’s name shall not be published and shall be referred to only as NS in these proceedings.
  2. The Claimant may act in these proceedings without a litigation friend.
  3. Permission to bring the claim is refused.
  4. The application for interim relief is refused.
  5. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £4167.00
  6. Paragraph 3 above is a final costs order unless within 14 days of the date of this Order the Claimant files with the Court and serves on the Defendant a notice of objection setting out the reasons why he should not be required to pay costs (either as required by the costs order, or at all). If the Claimant files and serves notice of objection, the Defendant may, within 14 days of the date it is served, file and serve submissions in response. The Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant’s response is served, file and serve submissions in reply. Thereafter, a Judge will decide on the basis of the written representations referred to above, what order for costs, if any, should be made.
  7. The directions at paragraph 6 apply whether or not the Claimant seeks reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review.
    (a) If an application for reconsideration is made, the Judge who hears that application will consider the written representations filed pursuant to paragraph 4 above together with such further oral submissions as may be permitted, and decide what costs order if any,
    (b) If no application for reconsideration is made or if an application is made but withdrawn, the written representations filed pursuant to paragraph 4 above will be referred to a Judge and what order for costs if any, should be made will be decided without further hearing.


  1. The Claimant was interviewed over several hours by two experienced social workers in the presence of an appropriate adult.
  2. The assessment was full, well rounded and fair.
  3. The assessors took account of the Claimant’s likely traumatic experiences and how these may account for his inconsistencies.
  4. The assessors made reasonable inquiries in the circumstances.
  5. They gave little weight to his appearance and demeanour.
  6. The question which they had to determine was whether the Claimant is a child.
  7. The grounds are not arguable.
  8. There was serious delay in bringing the claim, even if the date of the decision was 12 December 2022. Simply by asking for a review does not extend time. There is no good reason for the delay, and not justification for extending time.