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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

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

4 June 2025

Before:

HHJ Tindal

Between:

The King on the application of
SK

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for interim relief After consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant only

ORDER by HHJ Tindal (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4)) and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
    a) No person shall identify the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as SK.
    b) A non-party may not obtain or inspect a copy of any Statement of Case or any other document filed with the Court and to which a non-party may have access pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with para.1 of this Order and/or any subsequent direction made by the Court.
    c) Anyone affected by the terms of this Order shall have permission to apply to vary or set aside any part of it, on 3 working days’ notice.
  2. Time for the Defendant to file its Acknowledgement of Service is abridged to 13th June 2025.
  3. Time for the Claimant to file any Reply is abridged to 19th June 2025.
  4. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is adjourned until permission.
  5. Costs in the claim

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is an Indian national who arrived in the UK on a visa in November 2023, gave birth to a son in September 2024 and who claimed asylum in February 2025. The claim is yet to be determined. In the circumstances, I will grant the anonymity order requested.
  2. The Claimant and her son were granted interim asylum-seeker accommodation under s.98 Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 at a hotel in Stoke-on-Trent. She makes various complaints about the appropriateness of that accommodation for her and her infant son, the absence of a refrigerator and ‘harassment’ by staff. Whilst she was given notice to quit and refused a maternity grant, on 28th March 2025 the Defendant accepted a duty to accommodate under s.95 IAA but declined her request for that in Coventry. She remains in the Stoke hotel awaiting dispersal but contends the accommodation is inadequate and fails to safeguard her child. She seeks interim relief.
  3. It is appropriate to consider interim relief alongside permission once the Court has the Defendant’s Defence, but that should be expedited given the potential impact on such a young and vulnerable child. I therefore expedite the Acknowledgement of Service and the Reply. That reflects that there has already been some delay, although that is largely down to confirmation the claim had been properly served.