Age assessment and interim relief

The Court of Appeal has, on 17 December 2025, handed down judgment in Derby City Council v R (UYR) [2025] EWCA Civ 1648. In the judgment, Zacaroli LJ provided important guidance which will be relevant to age assessment judicial review claims. In particular:

a) The Court held (§§33; 59) that there is no requirement for a claimant to show they have a “strong prima facie case” as a gateway requirement to obtaining interim relief in an age assessment case. The appropriate test is that set out in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 and R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1425 (Admin) that there is a serious issue to be tried (a real prospect of success) and, if that test is satisfied, then the court must go on to consider where the balance of convenience lies.

b) In obiter comments (§§40-41), the Court questioned whether the submission that there must be a strong prima facie case as a gateway requirement to obtaining mandatory interim relief as suggested in De Falco v Crawley BC [1980] QB 460 and British Standards Institution v R (RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd) [2024] EWCA Civ 530 survived the judgments in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame [1990] 1 AC 603, National Commercial Bank Jamaica Limited v Olint Corporation Limited [2009] UKPC 16, and R (X) v Office for Standards in Education [2020] EWCA Civ 594.

c) The Court held (§86), considering and applying the judgments in Liverpool City Council v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 43 and R (HA) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2012] EWHC 291 (Admin), that where a claimant is moved between several local authorities and each come to a determination on the claimant’s age, the claimant is not required to challenge or seek interim relief against the local authority which made the latest determination of age or necessarily the first determination of age. What will be important for interim relief principles, whilst guarding against forum shopping or “dumping” of claimants by local authorities (§89), is which decision is impugned.

d) In obiter comments (§87), the Court suggested that where several local authorities have age assessed and/or provided accommodation and support to a putative child under the Children Act 1989, depending on the facts, they could all hold concurrent duties under the 1989 Act to the child.

e) When considering interim relief, the Court should be careful to examine the factual background as to whether the claimant actually requires interim relief. If they are being provided with accommodation by one local authority, even if there is a dispute as to which local authority should be providing accommodation, it is unlikely that they will require interim relief (§§91-93).

David C. Gardner and Susana Ferrin are barristers at No.5 Barristers' Chambers. They appeared for the Respondent (UYR), instructed by Martin Bridger and Megan Paterson of Luke and Bridger Law.

A fuller analysis of the case will appear on the No.5 Barrister’s Chambers website in due course.