Brief enquiry of age

The Administrative Court has handed down judgment in R (on the application of UYR) v Derby City Council v Bedford Borough Council, Manchester City Council [2025] EWHC 2081 (Admin), granting interim relief in a judicial review claim that challenges a decision by Derby City Council to assess the Claimant to be an adult and to decline to provide services pursuant to the Children Act 1989. In considering the grant of an interim mandatory order for Derby City Council to treat the Claimant as a putative child, aged 15, pending the final conclusion of the proceedings or until further order, Karen Ridge, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, addressed an unusual set of circumstances due to the involvement of three local authorities and the fast moving pace of the case.

The Claimant had been assessed by brief enquiry to be an adult by Bedford Borough Council. He spent 4 days in accommodation in Bedford. He was then dispersed by the Home Office into the administrative area of Derby City Council, where he was again age assessed to be an adult. He spent 20 days in accommodation in Derby. He was then once more dispersed by the Home Office into the administrative area of Manchester City Council, where he presented at a hospital after collapsing and the staff nurse on duty made a safeguarding referral to Manchester City Council. He was then admitted to the children’s ward of the hospital. Emergency Duty Social workers from Manchester City Council attended at the hospital and decided that the Claimant should be provided with accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 after his discharge from hospital. Thereafter, the Claimant has been accommodated in foster care arranged by Manchester City Council on an interim basis. Manchester City Council’s social workers had been in communication with Derby City Council to seek to agree matters and which of the local authorities should provide accommodation and support to the Claimant in the longer term, but agreement had not been reached at the time of the interim relief hearing.

Applying the principles in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, the Administrative Court found: (i) There was a serious issue to be tried (see paragraphs [18]-[22] of the judgment); (ii) There is little doubt that either party would be harmed by the wrongful grant or refusal (as the case may be) of injunctive relief in a way that cannot be adequately compensated in damages (see paragraph [23]); and (iii) The risk to the well-being of the Claimant of not treating him as a child is a significant factor which weighs in the balance and so he should be treated as a child pending the outcome of the dispute about his age (see paragraphs [24]-[30]). The Court also observed at paragraph [29] that: “Whilst Manchester City Council has assumed responsibility for providing Children Act services pursuant to the section 20 duty, that has occurred after the date of the impugned decision and the date when, if the claim succeeds, the Defendant would have been liable to provide Children Act services.”

The Judge also stayed the interim relief order to allow Derby City Council to appeal to the Court of Appeal (and on the basis that it was unlikely that Manchester City Council would cease provision before an appeal could be filed). The decision will be considered by the Court of Appeal in due course at a full hearing, the Judge granting permission to appeal and recognising the novel and important issues in the case. The Court of Appeal will also imminently consider whether to continue the stay of the order and if so on what terms.

Susana Ferrín of No5 Barristers’ Chambers acted for the Claimant, UYR. She was instructed by Martin Bridger of Luke & Bridger Law Ltd. The judgment can be found here. The judgment has also been reported here.