SB, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

SB, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Judge was wrong to quash the age assessment decision on grounds of procedural unfairness. The social workers' detailed reasons justified proceeding without an interpreter or appropriate adult, and the process was fair in the circumstances. There is no rule of law requiring an appropriate adult in every case, and the absence of an interpreter did not render the process unfair given the social workers' assessment of the claimant's English proficiency. Procedural challenges should not be considered in isolation from the merits in age assessment judicial reviews.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: SB; Defendant/appellant: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Age Assessment / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Age Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Children Act 1989, Appropriate Adult, Interpreter Requirement
Administrative Law Child Law Immigration Law Age Assessment Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Children Act 1989 Appropriate Adult +1 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SB

Claimant/respondent

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Age Assessment / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the age assessment decision was unlawful due to procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether absence of interpreter and appropriate adult rendered the process unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in quashing the age assessment decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge was wrong to quash the age assessment decision on grounds of procedural unfairness. The social workers' detailed reasons justified proceeding without an interpreter or appropriate adult, and the process was fair in the circumstances. There is no rule of law requiring an appropriate adult in every case, and the absence of an interpreter did not render the process unfair given the social workers' assessment of the claimant's English proficiency. Procedural challenges should not be considered in isolation from the merits in age assessment judicial reviews.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court order quashing the age assessment decision set aside
  • No further order as to reassessment; the matter is academic between the parties