SK v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 179 (AAC) (05 May 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal dismissed SK’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to place her on the Adults’ Barred List under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that the DBS had not made any mistake of law or any material mistake of fact in concluding that allegations of hitting, swearing at, and neglecting a vulnerable adult were proved and that barring was appropriate and proportionate.

Key points

• Parties: SK appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• Context: SK worked as a care assistant in a care home for vulnerable adults; the allegation came from colleague MN regarding treatment of BM, a vulnerable 93-year-old service user.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; DBS decision of 21 November 2024 to place SK on the Adults’ Barred List stood.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal heard fresh evidence but was not persuaded DBS had erred on law or fact.
• Legal framework: appeal under section 4 of the 2006 Act is limited to mistakes of law or fact; appropriateness/proportionality is constrained by section 4(3) and relevant case law.
• Sanctions angle: no sanctions/export-control issue; the only sanction-like consequence discussed is statutory barring from regulated activity and the contempt penalties for breaching the reporting restrictions order.

Why it matters

This decision reinforces the evidential and appellate threshold for challenging DBS safeguarding barring decisions, which can materially restrict access to sensitive care-sector roles. For national-security and sovereign-risk analysts, it is relevant as a marker of how UK authorities sustain exclusion from regulated activity where they find conduct-based risk to vulnerable persons.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case confirms that an appeal will usually fail unless the appellant can identify a material error of law or fact in the DBS decision itself; disagreement with the DBS’s weighing of evidence is not enough. Organisations making referrals or defending safeguarding decisions should expect the Tribunal to scrutinise fresh evidence but to defer to a properly reasoned DBS finding on relevant conduct, risk, and proportionality.