SA v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 232 (AAC) (22 June 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed SA’s second appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to keep him on the adults’ barred list, finding mistakes of law and fact in DBS’s new decision. It held that DBS had departed from binding findings made by the first Upper Tribunal and had also made unsupported additional findings, but it remitted the matter back to DBS for a fresh decision rather than ordering removal from the barred list itself.

Key points

• Parties: SA, a former healthcare assistant, v Disclosure and Barring Service; the case concerns retention on the adults’ barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
• Holding: appeal allowed; DBS’s decision was unlawful because it made mistakes of law and fact.
• Reasoning: where the Upper Tribunal directs DBS under s.4(7)(a) SVGA 2006, DBS is bound by the Tribunal’s findings of fact but may rely on additional facts; however, issue estoppel/Henderson v Henderson prevents re-litigation of issues already decided or that should have been raised.
• Substance: the Tribunal found DBS had departed from binding findings from the first appeal and made additional findings unsupported by the evidence.
• Disposal: remitted to DBS for a new decision under s.4(6)(b), to be taken on the factual findings made by both Upper Tribunals.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no sanctions or export-control issue; the closest analogue is the Tribunal’s treatment of procedural finality and binding findings in a public protection regime.

Why it matters

This is relevant to security and risk audiences because it clarifies how finality, estoppel, and remittal operate where a regulator makes repeat decisions affecting an individual’s ability to work in sensitive roles. It shows the Tribunal policing the evidential basis for a protective list decision, which is directly relevant to how public authorities build and defend adverse-status determinations.

Implications

For compliance and enforcement bodies, the case strengthens the need to treat remitted factual findings as binding and avoid reconstructing a case on a broader or different factual basis without evidential support. For litigation strategy, it confirms that second-round appeals can be constrained by issue estoppel even where a new decision has been made, but an unlawful decision will not necessarily result in automatic removal if the Tribunal considers a fresh lawful decision remains open.