HBTN, R (on the application of) v Sunderland City Council & Ors [2019] EWHC 3221 (Admin) (26 November 2019)

HBTN, R (on the application of) v Sunderland City Council & Ors [2019] EWHC 3221 (Admin) (26 November 2019)

The claims against both Sunderland and Stockton are dismissed as academic following disclosure of the age assessment. There is no good reason in the public interest to determine the legality of Sunderland's earlier refusal to disclose, and the pleaded case does not support broader findings of illegality. Stockton owes no current duty as the claimant has now seen the assessment and accepts it overwhelmingly likely relates to her; any challenge must be directed at Sunderland.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3221 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: HBTN (by her litigation friend, Francesco Jeff of the Refugee Council); First Defendant: Sunderland City Council; Second Defendant: Stockton Council; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Assessment, Children Act 1989, Disclosure Obligations, Local Authority Duties, Judicial Review Procedure, Trafficking and Modern Slavery, Public Law Remedies
Administrative Law Child Law Immigration Law Age Assessment Children Act 1989 Disclosure Obligations Local Authority Duties Judicial Review Procedure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HBTN (by her litigation friend, Francesco Jeff of the Refugee Council)

Claimant

Sunderland City Council

First Defendant

Stockton Council

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sunderland City Council acted unlawfully in refusing to disclose an age assessment to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether Stockton Council owed duties to the claimant under the Children Act 1989 in the absence of a disclosed age assessment
  3. 3 Whether the claims against both defendants are academic following disclosure of the age assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against both Sunderland and Stockton are dismissed as academic following disclosure of the age assessment. There is no good reason in the public interest to determine the legality of Sunderland's earlier refusal to disclose, and the pleaded case does not support broader findings of illegality. Stockton owes no current duty as the claimant has now seen the assessment and accepts it overwhelmingly likely relates to her; any challenge must be directed at Sunderland.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed