London Borough of Richmond upon Thames v AC (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Ward |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 173 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs,Special educational needs - special educational provision - naming school,Special educational needs - special educational provision - naming school or other institution in EHC plan,Ward,C |
| Date | 25 April 2017 |
| Published date | 09 May 2017 |
HS/549/2017 LB Richmond upon Thames v AC (SEN)
[2017] UKUT 0173 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No HS/549/2017
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARD
Decision: The appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice on 16 December 2016 under reference
EH318/16/00017 involved the making of an error of law and is set aside. The
case is referred to the First-tier Tribunal (HESC Chamber) for rehearing
before a differently constituted tribunal. I direct that the file be placed before a
salaried judge of the First-tier Tribunal as soon as possible for consideration
of whether further case management directions are required.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The local authority appeals, with permission given by Judge Lewis of the
First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”), against the FtT’s decision of 9 January 2017. In
giving permission to appeal, the judge, summarising, observed:
“4. The Grounds are: 1) Incorrect compliance with “parental
preference” on the facts of this case 2) The Tribunal erred in
determining what was “unreasonable public expenditure” and 3) the
Tribunal failed to consider the relationship between its role and that of
the authority in undertaking enforcement proceedings under the
Education Act 1996.
5. I grant permission to appeal on all Grounds. Each is arguable.
6. I conclude that this is an area of the law that requires further
clarification in the public interest of the interpretation of [how wide] (sic)
“unreasonable public expenditure”, following Haining v Warrington BC
[2014] EWCA Civ 398.”
2. Although the grounds have evolved somewhat in the course of proceedings
and, as is not uncommon, the public law issues in this case can be
categorised in a variety of different ways, Judge Lewis’s summary remains a
concise guide to the key issues in the case. So far as I consider I properly
can given the course the case has taken, I address the point identified in para
6 of her grant of permission.
3. The appeal was lodged with the Upper Tribunal on 13 February and the
case has been expedited, as there are understood to be current proceedings
under s.31 Children Act 1989, which make the prompt resolution of the
present appeal desirable. Originally an oral hearing of this appeal was set for
27 March but it had to be adjourned because the local authority’s counsel had
very recently become unwell. The parties agreed that, to avoid the delay if
another hearing date had to be found, the appeal should be decided on the
papers after further written submissions. I am grateful to all those who have
worked, quickly and flexibly, on this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
St Helens Borough Council v TE and another (SEN)
...tribunal which is confined to a point of law. 21. There is in my view no parallel with decision in LB Richmond-uponThames v AC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 173(AAC), on which he also seeks to In that case, the FtT had found that the school could meet the child’s needs yet her mother would not send her......