JW v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge West |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKUT 70 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs - other,West,M |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 07 April 2021 |
JW v Wirral MBC (SEN)
[2021] UKUT 70 (AAC)
JW v. Wirral MBC (SEN) 1 HS/1516/2020(A)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. HS/1516/2020
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
ON APPEAL FROM THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (HESC)
(SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS & DISABILITY)
Tribunal Ref EH344/19/00037
Between
JW
Appellant
and
WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Respondent
BEFORE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEST
Hearing date: 19 February 2021
Decision Date: 16 March 2021
Representation: Mr John Friel, counsel (for the Appellant)
(instructed by SEN Legal)
Mr Matthew Smith, counsel (for the Respondent)
(instructed by the Council)
DETERMINATION
The application for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier
Tribunal (HESC) (Special Educational Needs & Disability) dated 17 July 2020
under file reference EH344/19/00037 is granted on ground one of the grounds
of appeal, but not on grounds two and three.
JW v Wirral MBC (SEN)
[2021] UKUT 70 (AAC)
JW v. Wirral MBC (SEN) 2 HS/1516/2020(A)
The appeal against that decision is allowed. The decision of the First-tier
Tribunal contains an error of law.
The decision is remade. The Council acted unreasonably in in attempting to
bring placement (Section I) into the appeal. The Council's conduct was such
as to justify making an order for costs.
The costs payable by the Council are summarily assessed to be in the sum of
£22,000.00 including VAT. The Council is to pay that sum to the Appellant
within 28 days of the date of the letter sending out this decision.
This determination is made under section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts
and Enforcement Act 2007.
ORDER
Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules
2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter
likely to lead members of the public to identify the young person in
these proceedings. This order does not apply to (a) the young person’s
parents (b) any person to whom the young person’s parents, in due
exercise of their parental responsibility, disclose such a matter or who
learns of it through publication by either parent, where such publication
is a due exercise of parental responsibility (c) any person exercising
statutory (including judicial) functions in relation to the young person
where knowledge of the matter is reasonably necessary for the proper
exercise of the functions.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
This decision follows a remote hearing which has been consented to by the
parties. As required, I record that:
JW v Wirral MBC (SEN)
[2021] UKUT 70 (AAC)
JW v. Wirral MBC (SEN) 3 HS/1516/2020(A)
(a) the form of remote hearing was A (audio by telephone), a video hearing by
Skype having to be aborted because of difficulties with the available
technology. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not
practicable in the light of Government guidance on urgent matters of public
health and the case was suitable for remote hearing, involving an application
for permission to appeal and, if granted, an appeal to follow, on pure matters
of law. Further delay would be inexpedient as this is an appeal involving the
liability for costs in the case of the special educational needs of a young
person in which the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal under appeal was made
on 17 July 2020, following an earlier substantive decision made on 26 May
2020
(b) the documents to which I was referred were contained in (i) a small
partially numbered First-tier Tribunal paper bundle of at least 72 pages (ii) a
large (but badly and repetitively numbered) First-tier Tribunal paper bundle of
at least 688 pages (and apparently with no Section D) (iii) an Upper Tribunal
paper bundle of 188 numbered pages (iv) an Appellant’s authorities bundle of
71 pages (v) a Respondent’s authorities bundle of 72 pages (vi) an additional
submissions bundle from the Appellant containing a skeleton argument of 16
pages and enclosures (vii) an additional submissions bundle from the
Respondent containing a skeleton argument of 4 pages and enclosures (viii) a
Respondent’s spreadsheet of 611 rows and 9 columns relating to the
summary assessment of costs
(c) the order and decision made are as set out above.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This case concerns the following questions:
(i) whether the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its costs decision
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
NS & RS v Kent County Council
...legal implications be ignored.” 22. This present decision should also be read in the context of my earlier decision in JW v Wirral MBC [2021] UKUT 70 (AAC), which I decided on 16 March Late Evidence 23. At the hearing Mr Lawson sought to put in a bundle of additional material. Some of it du......