RM -v- London Borough of Enfield (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim No: CO/3347/2022

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

14 September 2022


The Honourable Mr Justice Cotter


The Queen on the application of


London Borough of Enfield

On an application by the Claimant
Following consideration of the Claim Form, form N463, the Statement of Facts and Grounds and the supporting written evidence

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Cotter

1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted, and pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, CPR Rule 5.4A- 5.4D and Rule 39.2, with effect from the date of this order and until further order:
(a) There shall be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the name of the Claimant, reference to “RM”;
(b) There shall be no publication of any name, address, picture or other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant as being the Claimant in these proceedings;
(c) In paragraph 1(c) “publication” means communication to the public or any section of the public. It includes publication in a newspaper or broadcast, or on the internet, by any person;
(d) The Defendant, and any party served with or given notice of the anonymity order, has permission to apply to discharge or vary that order. Any application for that purpose must be made in writing, on notice to all parties;
(e) Any application for permission to inspect or obtain a non-anonymised version of a document must be made on notice to the Claimant and in accordance with CPR r.5.4C(6).

2. Pending the determination of this claim or further order, the Defendant shall continue to provide the Claimant with accommodation at 158 Hedge Lane, London N13 5BX (pursuant to its powers under the Children Act 1989 or s.1 of the Localism Act 2011).
3. Liberty to apply to discharge or vary this Order on two working days’ written notice.
4. Costs reserved.


Through this claim the Claimant, an Albanian national, former care leaver and an asylum seeker seeks, to challenge the decision of the Defendant dated 5 September 2022 to cease providing him with support under the Children Act 1989, including accommodation, at 158 Hedge Lane, London N13 5BX (where he has lived since 2019) from 19 September 2022. The Claimant does not have any alternative accommodation. There is plainly a serious issue to be tried. It is arguable that the Defendant has mistakenly not taken into account that as Claimant has an asylum claim still pending, he is not excluded from support under the Children Act 1989 by Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Further, it is arguable that in deciding whether the Claimant is entitled to support under the Children Act 1989 the Defendant was not entitled to take into account the possibility of support from NASS whether under s.95 or s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 since this is accommodation of last resort. If interim relief is not granted, the Claimant (who has a formal diagnosis of PTSD) will be homeless. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo until determination of the claim or further order. The Claimant also seeks an anonymity order. This is appropriate given the Claimant is vulnerable by virtue of his status as former care leaver and an asylum-seeker.