Petition of Qan for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 49 (02 June 2026)

Executive summary

The opinion describes a judicial review brought by Qan against South Lanarkshire Council over a Brief Enquiry Decision that concluded he was not under 18 and that a full age assessment was not required. The court set out the statutory framework for local authority accommodation duties and the age-assessment regime, and identified the main issues as the competency of the declarator sought for age, the lawfulness of the Brief Enquiry Decision, and whether any legal error justified reduction. The source text provided does not include the final disposal of those issues.

Key points

• Petitioner: Qan; respondent: South Lanarkshire Council; opinion by Lady Ross in the Outer House, Court of Session.
• Facts: Qan claimed to be a Vietnamese national born on 14 June 2008; the Home Office had earlier allocated a 2001 date of birth and he later sought local authority support as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child.
• Council action: two social workers conducted a welfare check and interview; the Brief Enquiry Decision answered 'no' to whether he was under 18, whether his stated age was accurate, and whether a full age assessment was required.
• Statutory context: section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and sections 49-50 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on age-disputed persons and local authority age assessments.
• Litigation posture: the parties agreed judicial review was the correct procedure, but disputed whether a declarator of age was competent and whether the court could determine age as a precedent fact.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent; the case concerns age assessment, child welfare duties, and asylum-related local authority functions.

Why it matters

This is relevant to sovereign-risk and migration governance because it shows how Scottish courts frame local authority decision-making where age determines access to child protection and accommodation. For sanctions/compliance audiences, the main value is indirect: it is a precedent on administrative legality and evidence handling in a high-stakes public-law setting, not a sanctions or export-controls ruling.

Implications

Compliance teams and public authorities dealing with asylum seekers should note the statutory split between local authority age decisions and designated-person age assessments under the 2022 Act, and the possibility of judicial review where an age enquiry is challenged. Litigation strategy should focus on whether the relief sought is legally competent and on the exact scope of review of a brief enquiry decision, especially where child-status drives accommodation and safeguarding duties.