A, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

Where an age-assessment challenge is not pursued and a subsequent review maintains the assessed age, the court may dismiss the claim against the local authority. The Secretary of State may be discharged as a party where no surviving challenge is pursued against that decision. Costs remain discretionary. A successful local authority may receive no order for costs where its failure to comply promptly with a court-directed timetable caused the proceedings to progress to substantive consideration.

The claimant, an unaccompanied asylum seeker from Ethiopia, claimed to be aged 16. Kent County Council assessed him as aged 18 and terminated his support under the Children Act 1989. The Secretary of State authorised his detention. After a vaccination record was produced, the council agreed to review its assessment but failed to notify the court by the required date. Permission for judicial review was consequently granted against the council, while permission had earlier been refused against the Secretary of State.

A further assessment concluded that the claimant was aged 18. The claimant was not represented and his solicitors lacked instructions. The court therefore considered whether the claim should be dismissed, whether the Secretary of State should remain a party, and whether the council should receive its costs.

1. Disposition. The claim against Kent County Council was dismissed because the further assessment maintained the conclusion that the claimant was aged 18 and no effective challenge to that decision was pursued. The Secretary of State was formally discharged as a party.
2. Costs. Kent County Council had obtained the substantive outcome it sought. However, the court had required it to notify the court of the review outcome by 14 March 2014, and it had failed to do so. That failure resulted in permission being granted and the proceedings moving to substantive engagement. In those circumstances, the court declined to make an order for costs in the council’s favour.
3. The court noted information that the claimant remained reporting at his known address and therefore was likely aware of the hearing, but did not alter the judgment’s content to reflect that recent information.

The judgment describes permission for judicial review being granted against Kent County Council after it failed to notify the court of the outcome of an ordered review. Permission had earlier been refused against the Secretary of State. The claim was then dismissed at first instance following the further assessment.