Case Law Update: DI v Glasgow City Council [2026]

The court has handed down an important judgment on age assessment (brief enquiry) practice in Scotland, addressing three key issues:

1. Whether a challenge becomes “academic” once the young person turns 18
2. What counts as adequate reasons in a short‑form age assessment
3. The limits of procedural fairness, rationality, and the Tameside duty in “obvious over 18” cases

The decision will be of particular interest to local authorities and practitioners undertaking brief enquiries.

Background

Mr I, an asylum seeker from Iran, approached Glasgow City Council in 2023 claiming to be 17. Two social workers conducted a brief age assessment and concluded that he was “significantly over 18”, based on appearance, demeanour and a short enquiry. A full Merton‑compliant assessment was not undertaken.

Mr I applied for permission to judicially review this decision and was refused, and then appealed that decision.

The claim for challenge was on the following grounds:

1. That the case was not Although Mr I had turned 18 at the time of the application, there were still consequences that would impact his life going forward. I.e. no right to throughcare services, and having his age incorrectly recorded throughout his life.
2. The brief enquiry did not provide sufficient reasoning in coming to the conclusion he was ”significantly over 18”
3. That he was not given a proper opportunity to respond to adverse points
4. That physical appearance and demeanour assessments are unreliable
5. That the social workers did not undertake sufficient enquiries where other information was available and therefore was a breach of the Tameside issue

What the court found

Was the case “academic”? – No

Key points

• An age assessment, even if not binding under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, may still be treated as relevant by the Home Office or First‑tier Tribunal when determining an asylum claim.
• The young person’s position remains “live” (and therefore not academic) until age 21 because they may be entitled to services under s.25(3) Children (Scotland) Act 1995.
• The assessment remained and had not been withdrawn.
• The Court recognised the public interest in accurate, evidence‑based dates of birth.

 

Adequate reasons – Short letters can still be lawful

The core of the challenge was that the decision letter lacked sufficient reasoning and was inconsistent with internal notes and affidavits.

Key points

• The decision letter clearly stated the basis for the conclusion:
  appearance and demeanour strongly suggested he was significantly over 18.
• Although credibility was mentioned in internal notes, it was not a decisive factor.
• “Demeanour” can overlap with credibility, but the Court accepted that, on this occasion, the decision ultimately rested on physical presentation.
• In “obvious over 18” cases, Merton expressly permits a brief, informal process.
• Reasons need not be lengthy or elaborate where the basis is straightforward.

Procedural fairness – The “gist” requirement was met

Mr I argued he was not given an opportunity to respond to adverse points.

Key points

• The contemporaneous notes showed he was told that his claimed age was not believed.
• He was given the chance to respond and maintained his claimed date of birth.
• Because the decision rested on appearance and demeanour, there was no requirement to put every credibility concern to him.
• The fairness standard is context‑specific; this was not a case requiring a detailed, trial‑like process.

Rationality – High threshold not met

Key points

• The court recognised the experience of the social workers conducting the assessment
• It was not irrational for experienced social workers to rely on physical indicators such as build, Adam’s apple, facial structure and acne scarring.
• The Court accepted these as legitimate observations in an age assessment context.
• The assessment did not need to list every physical feature considered.
• Issues around asylum disclosure were peripheral and did not undermine the decision.

The Tameside duty – No requirement for further enquiries

Key points

• The uncle’s role was a minor credibility point, not central to the age decision.
• The Council was entitled to conclude it had sufficient information based on appearance and demeanour alone.
• No reasonable decision‑maker would have considered further enquiries necessary.

Outcome of the Appeal

The challenge succeeded only on point 1, that the application was not academic.
On all other grounds the court found in favour of the local authority.

What this means for practice

“Obvious over 18” assessments remain lawful, but must be defensible

The Court continues to accept short‑form assessments where appearance and demeanour clearly indicate adulthood. However, the threshold is high and the reasoning must be transparent.

Decision letters must still give clear, intelligible reasons

Even brief letters must explain how the conclusion was reached. Vague references to “policy” or “Merton” are insufficient.

Procedural fairness is contextual

Where the decision rests on direct observation, the “gist” requirement is lighter. But where credibility is central, fuller engagement may be required.

Age assessments can have ongoing consequences beyond 18

This is a significant clarification for Scottish practice. Local authorities should assume that assessments may be scrutinised later in asylum or support contexts.

Internal notes and affidavits matter, but the decision letter is primary

Practitioners should ensure the letter accurately reflects the core reasoning, as this is what the Court will focus on.

Summary

This judgment reinforces the importance of clarity, proportionality, and defensibility in age assessment practice. It also highlights the continued relevance of Merton principles in Scotland, while acknowledging the practical realities of frontline decision‑making.

For practitioners, the message is clear:

• If relying on “obvious over 18”, ensure the reasoning is explicit and evidence‑based.
• If credibility concerns are material, they must be put to the young person.
• Keep contemporaneous notes consistent with the decision letter.
• Recognise that assessments may be revisited in asylum or support contexts long after the young person turns 18.

Disclaimer: This blog post provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult relevant legal sources and seek professional guidance when conducting age assessments

If you’d like training on brief enquiries or full age assessments, please get in touch.

 

---

---