KRA, R (on the application of) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWHC 575 (Admin)
BAA, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
8 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 252 (Admin)
High Court
A young man claimed he was 17 and challenged the council's decision that he was an adult. A judge initially sided with him but later changed their mind after seeing new information. The judge decided it was better to make a mistake and let an almost 18-year-old live as an adult than to mistakenly give resources to someone who is actually an adult. The council didn't have to treat him as a child anymore.
Key Facts
- •BAA (Claimant), a Sudanese national claiming to be 17, was initially housed as an adult by Liverpool City Council (Defendant) following an age assessment.
- •The Defendant's age assessment concluded BAA was over 18.
- •BAA challenged the assessment via judicial review, obtaining an interim order requiring the Defendant to treat him as a child and provide support.
- •The Defendant applied to set aside the interim order.
- •The court considered whether to apply an 'enhanced merits test' for interim mandatory injunctions in this context.
- •The court reviewed the age assessment and considered the balance of convenience.
Legal Principles
American Cyanamid test for interim injunctions: serious issue to be tried, inadequacy of damages, balance of convenience.
American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396
Low threshold for judicial review of age assessments.
R (on the application of FZ) v Croydon London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 59
Enhanced merits test for mandatory injunctions requiring local authorities to perform statutory housing duties (debated in this case).
R (on the application of Nolson) v Stevenage Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 379; De Falco v Crawley BC [1980] QB 460; Francis v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2003] EWCA Civ 443
Strength of the claim is a factor in the balance of convenience, especially for mandatory injunctions.
AS v Liverpool City Council [2020] EWHC 3531 (Admin)
Courts should give deference to properly conducted age assessments by qualified social workers.
R (on the application of AXA) v London Borough of Hackney [2021] EWHC 1345
It's preferable to err on the side of housing someone who is a child with adults, rather than housing an adult with children (debated in this case).
R (on the application of M) v Ealing London Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3645
Witness statements must be signed and, if practicable, in the witness's own words and language.
CPR 32.4(1), PD32 paragraph 18.1, Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824
Outcomes
The interim order requiring the Defendant to treat BAA as a child was discharged.
The court found the balance of convenience favored discharging the order, due to the weakness of BAA's case and the potential harm to public resources by wrongly housing an adult as a child.
No costs order was made.
The Defendant's delay in applying to set aside the order and the fact that the decision on the interlocutory application effectively ended the substantive dispute were considered.
Similar Cases
MAA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow
[2024] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
LS, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2872 (Admin)
MA, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
[2023] EWHC 359 (Admin)
Hawbir Muhammadi, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
[2024] EWHC 483 (Admin)