KRA, R (on the application of) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWHC 575 (Admin)
LS, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council
12 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2872 (Admin)
High Court
A young woman from Eritrea claimed she was a teenager, not an adult, as a local council decided. This mattered because she needed support as a child. A judge agreed there was enough doubt about her age to allow her claim to proceed. Because she was struggling mentally living in adult housing, the judge also ordered the council to give her support as a child while the case continues.
Key Facts
- •Claimant is an asylum seeker from Eritrea, claiming to be 17 (born September 12, 2006), while the Defendant (Warrington Borough Council) assesses her as 26 (born March 12, 1998).
- •The central issue is whether the Claimant is a child or an adult, impacting her eligibility for support under the Children Act 1989.
- •The Defendant's age assessment was based on appearance, demeanor, and doubts about her personal history, partially mirroring the Home Office's initial assessment.
- •The Claimant provided documents (school report, baptism certificate) supporting her claimed age, but the Defendant questioned their authenticity.
- •The Claimant's mental health deteriorated due to living conditions and lack of support, prompting an application for interim relief.
- •The Claimant's initial Claim Form lacked explicit grounds for judicial review, leading to a procedural objection by the Defendant.
Legal Principles
In age assessment cases, the court must determine if a factual case exists that could not properly succeed at a contested hearing. If so, permission for judicial review is refused.
R (FZ) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 59
The test for granting permission is whether there's a realistic prospect or arguable case that the court would conclude the claimant is younger than assessed by the local authority.
R (F) v Lewisham London Borough Council [2010] PTSR CS 13
Age assessment guidelines (Merton guidelines): no burden of proof; benefit of the doubt to the applicant; physical appearance and demeanor are relevant but not sole bases; independent decision based on reliable information; respectful and culturally aware process.
R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin); R (AB) v Kent CC [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin)
Claims for judicial review require clear and concise grounds, not simply asserting the assessment was wrong.
CPR 54A, PD para 4.2-4.3
The Denton test (seriousness of breach, explanation, overall context) applies to applications for extensions of time in judicial review cases.
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906; R (AK) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1038
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted.
The Claimant presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine question of fact regarding her age, clearing the threshold for permission at the permission stage. The court also granted relief from sanctions due to procedural irregularities in the initial claim form.
Interim relief granted (provision of child-appropriate support).
The potential harm to the Claimant's mental health from residing in adult accommodation outweighs any potential prejudice to the Defendant. The court considered evidence of the claimant's mental health and the risk of losing statutory entitlements if not recognized as a child.
Similar Cases
Hawbir Muhammadi, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
[2024] EWHC 483 (Admin)
Pishtian Karimi, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council
[2024] EWHC 93 (Admin)
OAM, R (on application of) v Sheffield City Council
[2024] EWHC 2671 (Admin)
AM, R (on the application of) v Sheffield City Council
[2024] EWHC 2670 (Admin)