LS, R (on the application of) v Warrington Borough Council

At the permission stage of an age-assessment judicial review, the court asks whether the evidence, taken at its highest, raises a factual case that could properly succeed at a contested hearing. A claimant is not entitled to permission merely by asserting that the local authority’s assessment is wrong. The court will later determine age independently on the balance of probabilities. Age assessments must be fair, rational and independently conducted, applying the relevant Merton guidance without a presumption that the person is an adult or a child. In urgent interim-relief applications, the court must weigh the potential harm of treating a child as an adult against the prejudice to the authority of providing support to an adult. Serious, evidenced safeguarding or mental-health risks may justify child-appropriate support pending final determination.

The claimant, an asylum seeker from Eritrea, said that she was 17. Warrington Borough Council assessed her as an adult following an age assessment and she sought judicial review, permission to proceed, and interim accommodation and support appropriate for a child.

The defendant disputed the timeliness and adequacy of the claim, arguing that the initial claim form contained only bare preliminary grounds and that the amended grounds should not be permitted. The central issues were whether the claimant had raised an arguable factual case, whether relief from sanctions and an extension of time should be granted, and whether interim relief was justified while her age remained unresolved.

1. Permission. The test in R (FZ) v Croydon LBC was applied. Permission should normally be granted unless the evidence, taken at its highest, could not properly succeed at a contested factual hearing. The claimant’s evidence, documents and psychological evidence raised a genuine factual question about her age. The case therefore passed the permission threshold.
2. Age assessment framework. The court would determine age independently at the substantive hearing on the balance of probabilities. There is no burden of proof or starting presumption of adulthood or childhood. The Merton guidance, as developed in R (AB) v Kent CC, remains material to fairness and rationality. The assessment must be independent, based on reliable information, conducted respectfully and with cultural awareness, and supported by adequate reasons. The claimant must have a fair opportunity to respond to provisional adverse conclusions.
3. Procedure and sanctions. The initial claim breached the requirement to state grounds clearly and concisely. Applying Denton v TH White Ltd, as confirmed for judicial review by R (AK) v SSHD, the breach was serious and the explanation inadequate. Nevertheless, refusing permission to rely on the amended grounds would be disproportionate and risk injustice because the defendant had been informed of the grounds in pre-action correspondence and the amendment followed promptly. Relief from sanctions was granted by extending time.
4. Interim relief. There was a serious issue to be tried. The balance of convenience favoured relief because the claimant faced evidenced mental-health deterioration and the loss of support available to a former looked-after child if she remained unrecognised as a child until adulthood. The defendant produced no specific safeguarding evidence or resource evidence showing comparable prejudice. Interim relief was granted, requiring child-appropriate accommodation and support. The claim was transferred to the Upper Tribunal for case management, consistent with R (SB) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

First-instance judicial review decision. The judgment records no earlier appellate decision in this litigation.