Judge orders interim relief amid dispute over age assessment

In UYR, R (on the application of) v Derby City Council [2025] EWHC 2081 (Admin) (25 July 2025), Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge concluded: “If the Defendant is wrong about the age of the Claimant, then the Defendant would have had responsibility for safeguarding the needs of the Claimant under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the date of the impugned decision.

“Whilst [another council] has subsequently 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 judicial review claim was a challenge to a decision to assess the claimant to be an adult and to decline to provide services pursuant to the Children Act 1989. The decision was made in March 2025 by the defendant, Derby City Council (DCC).

At the time of the hearing, the claimant resided in the administrative area of Manchester City Council, named as the second interested party.

Bedford Borough Council (BBC) was named as the first interested party because of its earlier involvement with the claimant, when it conducted an age assessment by brief enquiry and concluded that the claimant was an adult. However, that brief enquiry decision was not subject to challenge.

The claimant's country of origin is Ethiopia. The claimant's witness statement documented his life in Ethiopia, the murder of his father and his imprisonment alongside his brother for one month before his escape from detention.

He arrived, unaccompanied, in the UK in March 2025.

On his arrival into the UK, the claimant said he approached the police for help and informed them that he was a child with a date of birth in October 2009. He was screened as an adult and dispersed into adult accommodation. He spent 4 days in accommodation in Bedford, before being moved to Derby where he stayed for 20 days.

In late March 2025, DCC social workers conducted a brief age enquiry and concluded that the claimant was not his claimed age. 

The claimant's legal representatives sent a pre-action protocol letter to the council challenging the decision not to treat the claimant as a child and not to provide him with support under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

In April 2025, in its response to the pre-action protocol letter, the defendant notified the claimant's legal representatives that BBC had conducted an age assessment in March 2025; that the claim should be brought against BBC; and that the defendant would not be providing children's services.

The judge noted: “Evidence produced by the claimant attests to his mental health deteriorating due to the trauma he has suffered and his sense of isolation and lack of support”.

In May 2025, the claimant presented himself at a Manchester hospital after collapsing. The staff nurse on duty was of the view that the claimant was very young and she made a safeguarding referral to Manchester City Council (MCC).

The claimant was then admitted to the children's ward of the hospital. Emergency duty social workers from MCC attended at the hospital and decided that the claimant should be accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 after his discharge from hospital.

Thereafter, the claimant had been accommodated in foster care arranged by MCC on an interim basis.

Outlining the parties’ positions at the hearing, the judge said: “Ms Ferrin, on behalf of the Claimant, confirmed that the Claimant's primary position is that the Defendant formed its own decision on the Claimant's age, that decision is subject to challenge, and therefore interim relief is claimed against DCC.

“In the alternative, Ms Ferrin submits that the geographical rule applies in terms of interpretation of the Children Act 1989, and she contends that MCC must provide services under the Act but that in any event, it is for local authority services to work together as recognised by the Joint Working Guidance.”

Counsel for the defendant submitted that there had been two brief enquiries as to the claimant's age, by BBC and the defendant council, and each had concluded that the claimant was “plainly an adult". Those enquiries followed the Home Office decision that the claimant was an adult.

The judge said: “The claimant is now being treated as a child and [counsel for the defendant] contends there would be no risk of prejudice or harm to the claimant if interim injunctive relief is refused.”

The claim proceeded on two bases: the claimant's age as a question of precedent fact and procedural unfairness and/or failure to comply with guidance and relevant caselaw.

Considering the case, the judge said: “The safeguarding referral made by the Accident and Emergency Staff Nurse was an indication that a medical professional had formed such a view of the Claimant's age and vulnerabilities that it warranted such a referral. Similarly, the two Emergency Social Workers from MCC also formed a view that the Claimant was a child and his situation was such that powers should be exercised under the Children Act 1989 to accommodate him.

“There is also the Claimant's evidence from the Advocacy and Caseworker Manger at the Humans for Rights Network and more pertinently that of the Safeguarding Lead at Derbyshire Refugee Solidarity, previously a senior social worker of some 32 years standing. That evidence attests to the views of individuals experienced in working with children as to the Claimant's age.”

She continued: “Given the differing views of various professionals and other individuals, the fact that the Claimant is currently being accommodated as a child and all other evidence, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried.”

The judge observed that in the sphere of public administrative law there was “little doubt” that either party would be harmed by the wrongful grant or refusal of injunctive relief, in a way that could not be adequately compensated in damages.

She said: “I have concluded that 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 that he should be treated as a child pending the outcome of the dispute about his age. That points to the grant of interim relief.”

Ordering interim relief against the defendant council as the maker of the impugned decision, Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge concluded: “In this case, if the Defendant is wrong about the age of the Claimant, then the Defendant would have had responsibility for safeguarding the needs of the Claimant under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the date of the impugned decision. Whilst MCC has subsequently 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.”

She added: “The Joint Working Guidance is aimed at reducing unnecessary and repeated age assessment by different local authorities. In this case there is a live dispute as to the Claimant's age - that issue needs to be resolved between the Claimant and Defendant. I have concluded that, in the interim, the Claimant should be accommodated as a putative child pending resolution of the issue. If the Claimant is a child the duty to accommodate would have fallen on the Defendant at the date of the age assessment and prior to his current accommodation by MCC. There is no guarantee that MCC will continue to accommodate the Claimant as a child; they are now on notice as to the dispute regarding his age.

“On balance and following the rationale of the Joint Working Guidance regarding duplication of work by authorities, I am persuaded that it is appropriate to order interim relief against the Defendant as the maker of the impugned decision.”

Lottie Winson