Age assessment challenges belong in the Upper Tribunal, against the Home Secretary

The Upper Tribunal has held that judicial reviews of age assessment decisions by a "designated person" under sections 50 and 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 must be brought in the Upper Tribunal, against the Home Secretary.

Background

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), sitting with Upper Tribunal Judges Mandalia and Norton-Taylor, heard two linked cases on 9 January 2026 and promulgated its judgment on 24 April 2026. Anonymity orders were made, and the applicants are referred to as NXP and NAN.

Both applicants are foreign nationals who say they are under 18 and so entitled to support and accommodation under the Children Act 1989. The Home Secretary disputes their ages. In each case an age assessment was completed after a referral to the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB), and the decision did not accept the age the applicant claimed.

Each applicant lodged a judicial review claim in the Administrative Court. In each case permission was granted on all grounds and the claim was transferred to the Upper Tribunal. Fact-finding hearings to decide their actual ages remain in place and are unaffected by the judgment.

The questions

The Tribunal identified the cases as appropriate vehicles to address two matters of general importance for challenges to decisions made by a "designated person" under sections 50 and 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022:

1. Where should a judicial review claim be lodged: the Administrative Court or the Upper Tribunal? 2. Who is the appropriate respondent: the Home Secretary, the NAAB or something else?

The decision

The judgment sets out three conclusions:

• A challenge to an age assessment decision taken by a designated person under sections 50 and 51 falls within paragraph 1(i) of the Lord Chief Justice's Transfer Direction and must be brought in the Upper Tribunal.
• Where an age assessment decision is made under those sections, the appropriate respondent to a judicial review challenge, whether lodged in the Administrative Court or the Tribunal, is the Home Secretary.
• Where interim relief is sought, it is important that the party to whom any order is directed, usually the local authority, is named as an interested party and served with the claim and application.

The reasoning

The Home Secretary argued that all decisions under sections 50 and 51 are made "under the Immigration Acts", because the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is within the statutory definition of that term. On that basis they fall within paragraph 1(i) of the Transfer Direction, and the Administrative Court must transfer such claims to the Upper Tribunal.

The Tribunal said this approach had an "obvious attraction" but was too simplistic. It noted the High Court's decision in ABW v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] 1 W.L.R. 1685. That case held that the Transfer Direction should be read purposively, with a careful look at the nature and subject matter of the decision, rather than literally.

Sources

• NXP & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department [2026] UKUT 192 (IAC), Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)