THE KING (ON THE APPLICATION OF SWALCLIFFE PARK SCHOOL) v WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
[2023] EWHC 1451 (Admin)
LS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Merton
14 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 584 (Admin)
High Court
A child with severe autism needed a 52-week residential placement. A tribunal recommended it, but the local council refused. The court decided the council didn't properly consider all the facts before refusing, so their decision was overturned. The council must reconsider, and the plan for the child's care must be more detailed.
Key Facts
- •LS, a 15-year-old with severe autism and complex mental health needs, experienced significant regression, leading to violent behavior at home.
- •The family appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (Tribunal) for a residential school placement.
- •The Tribunal ordered an extended-day curriculum but recommended a 52-week residential placement as social care provision.
- •The London Borough of Merton (LA) rejected the 52-week recommendation, offering alternative social care.
- •LS's father, acting as litigation friend, challenged the LA's decision through judicial review.
Legal Principles
Definition of Special Educational Provision and Social Care Provision under Section 21 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014).
Children and Families Act 2014
Local Authority's duty to secure special educational provision under Section 37 and Section 42 of CFA 2014.
Children and Families Act 2014
Tribunal's power to recommend social care provision under the SEND (FTT Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017.
SEND (FTT Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017
LA's duty to respond to Tribunal recommendations, including providing reasons for rejection (Regulation 7).
SEND (FTT Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017
Wednesbury unreasonableness: A decision is unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to it. This involves assessing whether the right matters were considered and whether the decision-making process was rational.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Requirement for cogent reasons when rejecting Tribunal recommendations, particularly when the Tribunal has heard evidence and argument.
Various cases cited in section 57
Specificity required in EHC Plans for all provisions, including social care.
L v Clarke and Somerset County Council [1998] ELR 129; London Borough of Bromley v The Special Needs Tribunal [1999] ELR 260
Outcomes
Ground 1 (Tribunal's order): The 52-week placement was a social care recommendation, not a mandatory educational provision.
The Tribunal's order focused on the extended-day curriculum (educational provision), while the 52-week placement was a recommendation under Section H (social care).
Ground 2 (LA's decision): The LA's rejection of the 52-week recommendation was quashed due to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
The LA failed to adequately assess, weigh, calibrate, and balance all relevant factors, including the severity of LS's behaviour, the parents' inability to cope, and the expert opinions supporting a 52-week placement.
Ground 3 (Specificity of therapies): The EHC plan lacked sufficient specificity regarding therapies.
The plan did not adequately detail the provision for speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and behaviour management, potentially impacting the effectiveness of any social care provision.
Similar Cases
HXN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge
[2024] EWHC 443 (Admin)
TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney
[2023] EWHC 3063 (Admin)
Westminster City Council v First Tier Tribunal (HESC)
[2023] UKUT 177 (AAC)
L, R (on the application of) V Hampshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 1928 (Admin)