High Court Rules Council Must Provide Full Special Educational Provision in EHCP: Implications for UK Education and Public Law

Citation: [2024] EWHC 443 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the notable case of HXN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge [2024] EWHC 443 (Admin), the High Court of Justice examined a local authority’s failure to provide the full package of special educational provision as specified in a child’s Educational, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This article provides an analysis of the key legal principles applied and the implications of the court’s ruling, pertinent for UK legal professionals engaged in educational law and public administrative law.

Key Facts

The case centered around H, a 15-year-old boy with severe special educational needs, including autism. The crux of the matter was the admitted failure by the London Borough of Redbridge (‘the Council’) to provide full-time one-to-one support from a team of trained and experienced ABA (applied behavior analysis) tutors, as required by H’s EHCP—issued following a decision by the First-tier Tribunal in December 2022. Despite the admission, the court was compelled to address whether an appropriate remedy should be granted, given the extenuating circumstances presented by the Council.

The judgment extensively discusses the application of s.37(1), s.37(2), and s.42(2) & (6) of the Children and Families Act 2014, which places an unequivocal duty on local authorities to secure specified special educational provision for children with EHCPs. The case of R (N) v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135 was highlighted, emphasizing the mandatory nature of this duty, and the absence of a ‘best endeavours’ defense for the local authority.

The court also referenced R (BA) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2021] EWHC 1348 (Admin) and R (LB) v Surrey County Council [2022] EWHC 772 (Admin), reinforcing the principle that local authorities must arrange the provision for suitable education as per s.19(1) of the Education Act 1996.

Crucially, the ruling considered the principles from R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC 45 for deciding whether to enforce public authorities’ statutory duties via a mandatory order. The court identified several decisive factors: the continued failure to comply with the statutory duty, the significant impact on the child’s education, and the lack of any action plan or ongoing rectification by the Council.

Outcomes

Deputy High Court Judge Alan Bates ruled in favor of H, issuing a mandatory order compelling the Council to provide H with the full package of special educational provision as detailed in his EHCP within five weeks. The decision reflected the court’s view that while the parents’ conduct may have had some impact, it was the Council’s predominant failure to act that necessitated judicial intervention. The Judge acknowledged the parents’ understandable frustration given the historical challenges they faced in securing appropriate provision for H.

The Judge also ordered the Council to pay H’s legal costs, expressing displeasure at the Council’s litigation conduct, including its failure to acknowledge and respond to the claim in a timely manner and to engage meaningfully in alternative dispute resolution post-judgment.

Conclusion

The case of HXN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge serves as a compelling affirmation of the judiciary’s role in enforcing statutory duties imposed on public authorities. The Court did not shy away from scrutinizing the conduct of all parties involved, yet it held the Council accountable for not fulfilling its absolute duty to ensure the provision of special educational needs. This judgment underlines the principle that public authorities cannot delegate their responsibilities and must proactively pursue all available means to comply with their statutory obligations, particularly when the consequences of failing to do so have considerably adverse effects on vulnerable individuals’ rights and well-being.