- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dastan Ibrahimi against Glasgow City Council (Court of Session)
Summary of Court Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The Petitioner is from The State and arrived in The City in 2021 as an asylum seeker. In 2023 he requested accommodation under section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, claiming a date of birth of 13 January 2006. In July 2023 two social workers employed by Company A carried out an age assessment, using an interpreter by telephone, and concluded that the Petitioner was over 18. Company A issued a decision letter on 19 July 2023 refusing accommodation. The Petitioner brought a petition for judicial review challenging the age assessment; a first-instance judge (Judge [Last Name]) refused the petition. The Petitioner pursued a reclaiming motion to this court (a panel including Judge Clark, Judge Wise and Judge Carmichael), seeking reduction of the age assessment decision. Company A resisted the reclaiming motion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petition for judicial review was academic or hypothetical.
- Whether adequate reasons were given for the age assessment decision.
- Whether the procedure followed by Company A was procedurally unfair (natural justice/Doody principles).
- Whether the age-assessment decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable.
- Whether Company A breached the duty to make further inquiries (the Tameside duty).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petition was not academic: the age assessment, if not reduced, would have continuing practical consequences (reliance by Home Office, First-tier Tribunal and entitlement to section 25(3) assistance while under 21).
- The 19 July 2023 decision letter gave inadequate reasons and was inconsistent with contemporaneous notes and later affidavits; parts of the affidavits amounted to ex post facto reasoning.
- The procedure was unfair because the Petitioner was not told the gist of adverse credibility concerns before the decision and was not given a proper opportunity to respond.
- The decision was irrational because physical features relied upon can be present in persons under 18 and the social workers were not expert witnesses; Company A ought to have made further inquiries (Tameside duty), e.g. with the Home Office or Merseyside Police regarding the uncle.
Respondent's Arguments (Company A)
- The petition was academic and should be refused; analogous authority indicated no live issue where the individual was accepted to be over 18.
- The 19 July 2023 letter gave adequate reasons: a clear statement that the decision rested on visual assessment of appearance and demeanour in circumstances where the person was obviously over 18 (application of Merton).
- No procedural unfairness arose because the Petitioner was told the gist (that his claimed age was not believed) and had an opportunity to respond.
- The rationality and Tameside challenges did not meet the high threshold for intervention; the Lord Ordinary correctly focussed on the decision letter rather than internal notes or later affidavits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R (B) v Merton London BC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), [2003] 4 All ER 280 | Where it is very obvious a person is under or over 18, no prolonged inquiry is required; informal approach endorsed. | The court held the social workers' visual assessment equated to the Merton test and that brief reasons sufficed in such obvious cases. |
| Wightman v S of S for Exiting the EU [2018] CSIH 62, 2019 SC 111 | Court should not determine hypothetical or academic questions that will have no practical effect. | The court considered the academic issue but concluded here the petition was not academic because the age assessment could have practical future effects. |
| R (SB) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2023] EWCA Civ 924, [2024] 1 WLR 2613 | No live issue where it is accepted the individual is over 18 and has never been looked after by the local authority. | The court considered R (SB) but distinguished the present case, finding live issues remained relevant to future decisions. |
| Abdullah v Aberdeenshire Council [2024] CSOH 8, 2024 SLT 143 | Similar context where age-assessment judicial review may be academic. | Court noted Abdullah but held the present facts did not render the petition academic. |
| Reg v Home Secretary Ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 | Natural justice: requirement to inform a person of the gist of the case against them so they can make representations. | The court applied Doody to assess procedural fairness and concluded the Petitioner had been told the gist and allowed to respond. |
| Education Secretary v Tameside BC [1977] AC 1014 | Duty to make reasonable inquiries if information is insufficient to reach a decision (Tameside duty). | The court held no breach: the matters the Petitioner relied on were not key facts and further inquiries were not required for a reasonable decision-maker. |
| Gender Recognition Reform Order 2023 [2023] CSOH 89, 2024 SC 173 | Referenced discussion of Tameside duty in context of administrative inquiries. | Cited for the proposition that further inquiries are required only where necessary; court found none required here. |
| R (BM) v LB Hackney [2016] EWHC 3338 (Admin) | Home Office may treat a local authority age assessment as relevant when determining asylum claims. | Court accepted that the age assessment could be relied on by the Home Office or the First-tier Tribunal, supporting the conclusion the petition was not academic. |
| Ahmat v Aberdeenshire Council [2025] CSOH 15, 2025 SLT 735 | Age dispute relevance to future exercise of powers under section 25(3) of the 1995 Act. | Court regarded Ahmat as supporting the relevance of age disputes to future local authority assistance and considered its approach persuasive. |
| JR194 [2024] NIKB 46 | Public interest in accurate records of dates of birth and Article 8 considerations (as relied on by Petitioner). | Court considered JR194 but found it not directly analogous; nonetheless accepted accurate records may have practical consequences. |
| Chief Constable v Lothian and Borders Police Board [2005] CSOH 32, 2005 SLT 315 | Affidavits filed later may amount to ex post facto reasoning and be given little weight. | Court noted affidavits could be given little weight but found they did not show reasons fundamentally different from the decision letter. |
| R (HAM) v Brent LBC [2022] EWHC 1924 (Admin), [2022] PTSR 1779 | Where credibility is in issue and decision-maker concludes the person is lying, reasons for that view should be explained to allow response. | Court accepted the principle but found this was not such a case because the decision rested on appearance and demeanour and the gist had been communicated. |
| R (MVN) v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] EWHC 1942 (Admin) | Social workers are not expert witnesses; caution in treating their assessments as conclusive. | Court acknowledged the point but held the social workers' experience and observations were not irrational in this case. |
| Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345 | Decision must leave the informed reader without "real and substantial doubt" as to reasons. | Court applied the Wordie test and concluded the decision letter provided adequate reasons. |
| Paton, Petitioner [2019] CSOH 62 | Reasons may be short in appropriate cases. | Court relied on Paton to support that brief reasons are acceptable where circumstances permit. |
| R (GE (Eritrea)) v Home Secretary [2015] 1 WLR 4123 | Referenced in connection with Ahmat and relevance of age disputes. | Court noted the case in considering Ahmat but treated the present facts on their own merits. |
| Pyaneandee v Leen [2024] UKPC 27 | Standards of procedural fairness depend on facts and circumstances of each case. | Court applied the principle that fairness is fact-specific and concluded fairness requirements were met here. |
| Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs v Ramjohn [2011] UKPC 20 | Reference for factual, case-specific approach to fairness (citing Doody). | Court cited Ramjohn to support the point that fairness depends on context and applied it accordingly. |
| R v Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, Ex p Cotton [1990] IRLR 344 CA | Authority on procedural fairness and natural justice principles. | Court cited Cotton among authorities establishing the Doody principles and applied them to the facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court addressed the issues in order.
On whether the petition was academic, the court rejected that characterization. Although the age assessment was not made under section 50 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and so was not binding, the court accepted Company A's decision could be treated as relevant by the Home Office or the First-tier Tribunal and could affect entitlement to assistance under section 25(3) while the Petitioner remained under 21. The existence of live potential consequences meant the petition was not hypothetical.
On adequacy of reasons, the court applied the Wordie test and Merton. The 19 July 2023 decision letter explicitly stated the decision rested on a visual assessment of appearance, demeanour and a brief enquiry. That statement, in the court's view, left no real and substantial doubt for an informed reader as to why the outcome was reached in circumstances where the Petitioner was, on the respondent's view, obviously over 18. The court found the contemporaneous notes and later affidavits did not disclose fundamentally different reasons.
On procedural fairness, applying Doody and related authorities, the court concluded the Petitioner had been told the gist (that his claimed age was not believed) and had an opportunity to respond; additional opportunity to address detailed credibility points was unnecessary where the decision rested on appearance and demeanour alone.
On irrationality, the court held the high Wednesbury threshold was not met. It was not irrational for experienced social workers to have regard to the physical features and demeanour described; those observations could reasonably support the conclusion reached. The court emphasised the supporting credibility factors were not decisive elements without which the decision could not have been reached.
On the Tameside duty, the court held no breach: the matters the Petitioner sought further inquiry on were minor credibility points, not key factual matters required to reach a reasonable conclusion based on physical appearance and demeanour, and further inquiries were not required of a reasonable decision-maker.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The reclaiming motion succeeds only on the limited point that the petition was not academic or hypothetical; on the substantive grounds it fails. The court recalled the first-instance interlocutor, sustained the Petitioner’s third and fourth pleas-in-law to the extent that the petition was not academic or hypothetical, sustained Company A’s fifth and sixth pleas-in-law, repelled all other pleas-in-law, and refused to grant the remedy sought (reduction of the age assessment). Questions of expenses were reserved.
Implications: The direct effect is that the age-assessment decision remains in place and the Petitioner’s petition for reduction is refused. The court did not establish a new precedent beyond applying existing authorities (Merton, Wordie, Doody, Tameside and related cases) to the facts; its decision confirms that brief reasons and reliance on appearance/demeanour can be adequate where it is obvious an individual is over 18, and that the petition was not academic because such assessments can have practical future consequences.
Alert