Upper Tribunal guidance on judicial review challenges brought to decisions of the National Age Assessment Board

In April 2026, the Upper Tribunal handed down a decision issuing new guidance in age assessment disputes where the age assessments have been carried out by the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB). The Tribunal’s decision on the substantive age dispute issue is pending.

Two cases were selected to determine two issues of general importance in NAAB age dispute challenges, following an application made by the Secretary of State to deal with these issues:

(1) The appropriate venue for lodging judicial review applications where the decision under challenge has been made by a ‘designated person’ pursuant to sections 50 and 51 Nationality and Borders Act 2022  (NABA) and in light of the transfer direction

(2) Who the appropriate respondent was in challenges to decisions made by a ‘designated person’, is it the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the National Age Assessment Board.

Of the two cases selected, Gimhani Eriyagolla in our Public Law & Human Rights department represented NAN, an age disputed minor from Afghanistan with a history of being a victim of modern slavery twice en route to the UK. In challenging the age assessment carried out by NAAB, NAN also included a ground challenging the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refer him to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

NAN’s case was issued in the High Court, naming the Secretary of State for the Home Department as the Defendant. Permission was granted on all grounds and the claim transferred to the Upper Tribunal for a fact-finding hearing.

The Upper Tribunal found in relation to issue (1) that while a literal approach to the Transfer Direction is not appropriate, the wording of sections 50 and 51 NABA create a “clear nexus between an age assessment (and its resulting decision) and the exercising of “immigration functions”. Age assessment disputes where the age assessments have been carried out by NAAB, therefore need to be issued in the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine applications for interim relief, e.g. for the Claimant to be accommodated and supported by their local authority.

Where there are other public law grounds (for example a failure to recognise the Claimant is a victim of trafficking), the Claimants will need to consider the scope of the challenge when identifying the appropriate forum to issue the claim. This decision does not affect age assessment disputes where the local authority carried out the initial age assessment.

In relation to issue (2) the Tribunal found that in age assessment decisions made by a designate person pursuant to sections 50 and 51 NABA, the correct Respondent is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, rather than NAAB. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal found that NAAB is not a distinct entity from the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Counsel instructed to represent NAN was Eva Doerr of Garden Court Chambers.

‍