Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Thuyen Van Nguyen for Judicial Review (Court of Session)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner, a Vietnamese asylum seeker, claimed to be under 18 and sought accommodation and support from the Local Authority as a looked-after child under section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Two social workers assessed Petitioner as significantly over 18, relying on appearance, demeanour and answers given during a brief enquiry. [1]
Petitioner later supplied letters from two support workers who considered his behaviour consistent with that of a child. The Local Authority refused twice to reassess his age, stating that the information provided was insufficient and that its team was satisfied with the original brief enquiry. [2][3][4][5][6][7]
Petitioner sought judicial review of those refusals. The original age assessment itself was not challenged. [8][9]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Local Authority gave legally adequate reasons for refusing to reassess Petitioner's age in light of the additional information. [8]
- Whether the refusals were irrational. [8]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The support workers' observations cast doubt on the original assessment and justified a fuller reassessment. [10]
- The claimed age was only two years below the age assigned by the Government Department, creating tension with the finding that Petitioner was significantly over 18. [10][11]
- The refusal letters did not explain why the new information was insufficient, particularly because the information had not been available during the original assessment. [10]
- The refusal to reassess was irrational. [10]
Respondent's Arguments
- The original assessment was accepted as lawful, and the additional letters contained only subjective opinions from support workers advocating for Petitioner. [12]
- No objective evidence undermined the original assessment, so the Local Authority was entitled to conclude that the new information did not alter its view. [12]
- The reasons were sufficient in the context of an informal age-assessment process, and the rationality challenge could not succeed. [12]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| Ibrahimi v Glasgow City Council [2026] CSIH 4 |
The petition was not academic despite Petitioner being over 18 on his claimed age; it also endorsed the relevant approach to age assessments and stated that reasons need not be lengthy or elaborate. |
The Court treated the original assessment as lawful and considered the challenge to the later refusals. [8][9][13] |
| QAN v South Lanarkshire Council [2026] CSOH 49 |
Age assessment is flexible: no particular procedure is required, and the assessment may be brief or detailed depending on the circumstances. |
The Court recognised the flexible nature of the assessment process. [14][15][16] |
| R (B) v London Borough of Merton [2003] 4 All ER 280 |
In non-obvious cases, decision-makers should not rely solely on appearance and should conduct an appropriate inquiry; the process should remain informal and should not be over-judicialised. |
The Court held that the later information did not amount to compelling evidence sufficient to displace the original view that Petitioner was significantly over 18. [17][18][19][12][20] |
| Paton, Petitioner [2019] CSOH 62 |
Reasons need not be lengthy or elaborate. |
This principle supported the conclusion that the terse refusal letters nevertheless gave legally sufficient reasons. [13][20] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began with the accepted validity of the original assessment, which was based on Petitioner's appearance, demeanour and answers to questions. The later refusals therefore had to be understood against that existing assessment. [11]
The Government Department's different age assignment did not materially affect the analysis because Petitioner did not challenge the original assessment on the basis that it had required a more extensive inquiry. [11]
The two letters supplied no objectively verifiable evidence. They principally recorded the support workers' observations and their opinions that Petitioner was a child; those observations were also capable of being consistent with the Local Authority's assessment that he was an adult. [11]
Although the refusal responses could usefully have contained more detail, an informed reader would understand that the Local Authority considered the information insufficient to justify revisiting the original assessment. In that context, more elaborate reasoning was not legally required. [20]
The rationality challenge also failed. The Local Authority could reasonably have chosen to revisit the original assessment, but its contrary decision was not so unreasonable that no decision-maker could have reached it. [21]
Holding and Implications
The petition was refused. The Court repelled Petitioner's fifth plea-in-law, sustained the Respondent's plea-in-law, and found Petitioner liable in expenses, while modifying that liability to nil because Petitioner was an assisted party. [22][23]
The direct effect was that the two refusals to reassess remained in force. The opinion does not identify any broader implication or establish a new precedent.
Click here to read the full judgment