The appeal arises out of a notice of enquiry sent by HMRC to the Respondent to the wrong address. HMRC subsequently issued a Closure Notice purporting to amend a certain tax return of the Respondent and disallow certain losses claimed. The Respondent disputed this and the question of whether a valid notice of enquiry had been served was heard as a preliminary issue.

                HMRC contends that its sending of a copy of the notice to the Respondent’s accountants established a mistaken assumption, shared by the parties, that a valid tax enquiry had nevertheless been opened into one of Respondent’s tax returns and the Respondent is therefore prevented by law from denying that there was a valid notice.

BF is a national of Eritrea and an asylum seeker who presented himself to police claiming that he was 16 years old. The immigration officers who saw him believed him to be substantially over 18, describing his physical appearance as that of an adult in his mid-twenties. He had previously claimed asylum in Italy, where he had given his age as 26. BF was held in immigration detention pending his return to Italy and continued to claim that he was a minor. Two formal age assessments found him to be an adult, but a third found him to be 16. Save in limited circumstances, it is unlawful for the Home Department to detain an unaccompanied child. BF applied for judicial review of the decision to detain him on the ground that the Home Department’s policy, which provided that a person claiming to be a child could be treated as an adult if immigration officers considered that their physical appearance very strongly suggested that they are significantly over 18, is unlawful. 

                BF’s judicial review claim was rejected by the Upper Tribunal. The Court of Appeal allowed BF’s appeal by a majority. The SSHD appeals the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The Appellant has five convictions for indecent assault on minors. The Appellant challenged the legality of the arrangements made by police in South Yorkshire for the retention and disclosure of information and data relating to the Appellant and these assaults. It was common ground that the retention by the police of certain data relating to the Appellant, which might in certain circumstances be disclosed, engaged article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). However, the High Court held that the scheme for disclosure does provide adequate guarantees against arbitrariness and is "in accordance with the law" [HC 56]. Moreover, the collection, ordering and possible disclosure of data is in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the interests of public safety, the prevention of crime and the protection of rights and freedoms of others. The Appellant appealed and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.