Queen’s Bench Division
Published May 25, 2007
Wolverhampton City Council v Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and Another
Before Mr Justice Irwin
Judgment May 14, 2007

Where, even though a local authority’s educational responsibility for a child had lapsed, the council had made a decision to end the statementing of a child then that decision was open to appeal.

Mr Justice Irwin so held in the Queen’s Bench Division in dismissing the appeal of Wolverhampton City Council against the refusal by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated October 1, 2006 of its application to strike out an appeal by A’s mother against the council’s refusal to maintain his statement of special educational needs. A’s mother was joined as an interested party.

A, aged 16, suffered from Asperger's syndrome. Initially, all parties agreed that his continued secondary education prior to going to a further education college should be undertaken at a particular school in the West Country.

However, A and his mother realised that there was an alternative in the form of a sixth-form college more conveniently located near to them in the West Midlands. The local authority decided on July 17, 2006 not to provide further for A by maintaining a statement for him, although it presented the loss of statementing as caused by a combination of the West Country school being declined and A being over compulsory school age.

A’s mother appealed to the tribunal. Notwithstanding the terms of paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 27 to the Education Act 1996, the tribunal decided that her appeal should be allowed to continue.

Ms Lisa Busch for Wolverhampton; Mr David Wolfe for A’s mother; the tribunal did not appear and was not represented.

MR JUSTICE IRWIN said that on June 17, 2006, although the local authority was maintaining a statement in respect of A and funding his continuing education pursuant to the statement, it was not responsible for him under statute.

As matter of fact, there was a determination by the local authority to cease to maintain a statement of the special educational needs, rather than automatic lapse of the statement.

At the time of that decision, A had ceased to be a child for whom the local authority was responsible within the meaning of the legislation. For that reason the local authority was no longer under a duty under paragraph 11 of Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act to maintain a statement.

However, as a matter of construction and for reasons of policy, the right of parents to appeal under paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 27 against an amendment on a determination to cease to maintain a statement persisted. Thus the jurisdiction of the tribunal was upheld and the appeal failed.

Solicitors: Sharpe Pritchard; Levenes, Wood Green.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers