BAA, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
[2023] EWHC 252 (Admin)
MA, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council
21 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 359 (Admin)
High Court
A city council tried to overturn a court order to help a young Syrian man, MA, who might be a teenager but was wrongly judged older. The judge said there is enough doubt about his age and he might be unsafe if not helped now, so the council must still help him until the real age is determined.
Key Facts
- •MA, a Syrian national, claims to be 17 but the Home Office assesses him as 28.
- •Liverpool City Council (Defendant) conducted an age assessment concluding MA is 28.
- •HHJ Davies ordered the Council to provide MA with accommodation and support under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
- •The Council applied to set aside HHJ Davies' order.
- •MA's witness statement was in English, not his native Kurdish Kurmanji, violating Practice Direction 32.
- •The Council failed to provide a hard copy bundle as per the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2022.
Legal Principles
Interim relief requires consideration of a serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, and balance of convenience (American Cyanamid test).
American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396
In mandatory injunctions, especially in public law, an enhanced merits test might be applied, requiring at least a strong prima facie 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
The court should consider the consequences of granting or withholding an injunction, focusing on irremediable prejudice to either party.
National Commercial Bank Jamaica Limited v Olint Corporation
In age assessment cases, there's no hard and fast rule for a strong prima facie case, but the strength of the claim is a factor in the balance of convenience.
AS v Liverpool City Council [2020] EWHC 3531 (Admin), R (on the application of AXA) v London Borough of Hackney [2021] EWHC 1345
Witness statements must comply with Practice Direction 32, being in the claimant's own language.
Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB)
Applicants must file both hard copy and electronic bundles (unless otherwise directed).
Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2022, paragraph 21.3 and 21.4
A protective precautionary approach should be considered when there's doubt about a claimant's age, weighing the risks of wrongly treating a child as an adult versus wrongly treating an adult as a child.
R (on the application of BG) v Oxfordshire County Council [2014] EWHC 3187, R (on the application of LYB) v Kent CC [2021] EWHC 663
Outcomes
The Council's application to set aside HHJ Davies' order was refused.
The judge found a serious issue to be tried regarding MA's age, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief due to MA's potential vulnerability and the lack of strong evidence to the contrary.
MA's witness statement, despite violating PD32, was admitted.
The violation appeared unintentional and the interpreter's statement confirmed MA's understanding.
The Council's failure to provide a proper bundle was addressed.
The electronic bundle was provided promptly, preventing adjournment.
Costs were awarded to MA.
MA was the successful party.
Similar Cases
MAA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow
[2024] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
NCH (Vietnam), R (on the application of) v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 1033 (Admin)
KRA, R (on the application of) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWHC 575 (Admin)
OAM, R (on application of) v Sheffield City Council
[2024] EWHC 2671 (Admin)