JR v Disclosure and Barring Service [2025] UKUT 392 (AAC) (21 November 2025)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal refused JR’s application for costs arising from a DBS barring decision under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. The Tribunal recorded that DBS had later reviewed and removed JR from both barred lists, making the appeal academic, but held that the costs application failed because no basis for a costs order was made out under the Tribunal rules and the respondent had not acted unreasonably.

Key points

• Parties: JR v Disclosure and Barring Service; application concerned DBS’s 22 March 2024 decision to include JR on the Adults’ Barred List and Children’s Barred List.
• Holding: application for costs refused.
• Procedural posture: DBS reviewed its barring decision under paragraph 18A of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act and removed JR’s name from both barred lists on 17 June 2025; the appeal was then struck out as academic.
• Reasoning: costs in the Upper Tribunal are discretionary, but the judge found the application did not establish the requirements for a costs order under rule 10, including unreasonable conduct by DBS.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal also noted the application was not an appeal and therefore did not require a panel; it was determined by a single judge.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent; this is a safeguarding and costs decision, not a sanctions or export-control case.

Why it matters

The decision shows how an adverse DBS barring decision can be overtaken by a later administrative review, ending the merits dispute without any costs recovery for the appellant. For risk and compliance audiences, it is relevant mainly as a procedural example of how public-authority decisions affecting employability and safeguarding status can be reviewed and then neutralize downstream litigation.

Implications

For litigants, the case underscores that a later favourable review by DBS does not automatically translate into costs: an applicant still must satisfy the Tribunal’s costs threshold and procedural requirements. For public bodies and regulated employers, it reinforces that prompt internal review can moot appeals, but the Tribunal will still scrutinize whether conduct during the proceedings was unreasonable before shifting costs.