XY v Disclosure and Barring Service: [2026] UKUT 149 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Brewer on 14 April 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This application concerns whether the Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain XY’s appeal. The Disclosure and Barring Service sought to strike it out under rule 8(2) of the 2008 Rules, contending that its decision of 30 December 2024 was merely a refusal of permission to conduct a review under paragraph 18(4) of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which carries no right of appeal. The Tribunal was therefore required to characterise the legal nature of that decision. Only a substantive review decision under paragraph 18(5), determining that the appellant should remain on the barred lists, engages the statutory right of appeal in section 4(1)(c).
Paragraph 18 establishes a two‑stage scheme: a permission decision followed, if granted, by a substantive review. Only the latter is appealable. Further, a decision has legal effect only as notified to the individual; internal records cannot contradict what is communicated. The letter of 30 December 2024 was internally inconsistent. It stated that no review had been undertaken yet also asserted that removal from the barred lists was refused and notified a right of appeal. That communication conveyed an apparent paragraph 18(5) outcome. The inconsistency renders the decision defective, but not legally inoperative. The notified decision was one “not to remove”, sufficient to engage section 4(1)(c). Jurisdiction therefore arises. Whether the DBS erred in law is a matter for the substantive appeal, if permission is granted.
The application to strike out is refused, applying the principles in AM v Disclosure and Barring Service [2021] UKUT 136 (AAC) and R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 36; [2004] 1 AC 604.