![[2024] UKUT 128 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusion
Conclusion
In all the circumstances of this case, it was submitted that the parents’ move abroad had a sufficient degree of permanence, in the sense that it was not short-term or sufficiently temporary. The family was absent for a period of years not weeks or months (therefore it was not “short term”). They also took steps to rent their property to tenants, demonstrating that they had no intention to return for the duration of the lengthy period of deployment. Without any consultation with the Council, they made their own alternative arrangements for T’s education in Dubai, in relation to which the Council did not (and was not reasonably able to) make any determination of suitability. (Footnote: 3) The Council’s decision to cease to maintain because T was not in its area, in those circumstances was reasonable, lawful and rational. The Tribunal made no finding that T was in the Council’s area whilst he was abroad in Dubai. It was not now open to the Upper Tribunal on an appeal against that decision to find otherwise.
The Council submitted that the new points raised by the Upper Tribunal did not change the general position taken by it in the appeal. The Council continued to invite the Upper Tribunal to uphold the appeal for the reasons given and those previously stated.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The Tribunal’s Decision
- Permission to Appeal
- Ground 1: the Tribunal erred by concluding that the Council was not entitled to cease to maintain T’s EHC Plan. T was no longer in the Council’s area; therefore the decision to cease to maintain was c
- The Legislative Framework
- “ Interpretation
- The SEND Code Of Practice
- The Armed Forces Covenant: the Council
- The Factual Background
- The Extent of the Issue
- The New Evidence
- the s.42(2) duty had been described as absolute and non-delegable: R(M) v Harrow LBC [1997] ELR 62, R(N) v North Tyneside BC [2010] EWCA Civ 135 at [27], R(ZK) v Redbridge LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 1597 at
- regulation 2(4) of the 1996 Regulations was clear that the definition in regulation 2(2) was confined to the application of the 1996 Regulations and had no bearing on the question of which local autho
- the role of the Tribunal in an appeal was to stand in the local authority’s shoes as at the date of the hearing. It performed an inquisitorial function and remade the decision, as opposed to performin
- The First Ground of Appeal
- The Second Ground of Appeal
- The Third Ground of Appeal
- as per Ground 4, the Tribunal erroneously concluded that an EHCP could be paused or frozen The Fourth Ground of Appeal
- Judge Ozen considered that it was relevant to ask whether the Council remained responsible for T during his time in Dubai. She cited the 1996 Regulations as being relevant to that question, a position
- in any event, in R(G) it was held that it was for a local authority to determine whether an individual lived in its area (for the purposes of a provision in the predecessor legislation which was equiv
- the parents relied on s.42(5) of the 2014 Act , but the Council did not make any decision as to the school in Dubai being a suitable alternative arrangement. The decision to move to Dubai and find an
- Disposal
- at the time of the hearing, and when permission to appeal was granted, T was still in Dubai
- S.45 of the 2014 Act (“the statutory procedure issue”)
- The legislative provisions governing an authority’s decision to cease maintaining an EHCP
- The decision below
- “the process of consulting the child and obtaining their views is integral to the decision-making processes of the local authority” under s.45(1) , see R(Milburn) at [45] upon the presentation of an in-time appeal, the ceasing decision was suspended
- S.24 of the 2014 Act (“the local authority area issue”)
- Purported jurisdictional issue
- R(G) was not authority for the proposition that the question whether a child lived in a local authority’s area could only be challenged by judicial review. That case simply stated that the question wa
- the Tribunal plainly was empowered to determine whether a child was or was not in the local authority’s area as part of its jurisdiction under the 2014 Act . That was a necessary and natural corollary
- Ordinary residence test
- the regulation determined residence expressly according to a test of ordinary residence. That was consistent with the other legal provisions set out above. It was further evidence that s.24 imposed a
- the residence of a child would almost always be aligned with the residence of his primary carer (save for some very narrow exceptional circumstances). It would be illogical for the question of residen
- Temporary absence
- the only place where T and his family had lived was Hampshire: “ We went to Dubai with a very clear understanding that Hampshire remained home and we would be returning to Hampshire after the end of t
- the Navy acknowledged that T’s home and family remained in Hampshire: “ The Navy also shared the same understanding that my family and I would return to Hampshire. The Navy offers all personnel on dep
- T’s family and social network was in Hampshire: “ Hypothetically, in the case of any emergency requiring deployed personnel to vacate the country they are deployed to, the Navy would be responsible fo
- the Navy recognised that T’s home area was Hampshire and had arranged for replacement accommodation there for him on return from Dubai: “ Ultimately we did return early and our house will not be avail
- The Second Ground of Appeal
- the judgment below had to be considered holistically: it was clear that the Tribunal considered all the documentation before it and turned its mind to questions of law and fact. It formed its own view
- The Third Ground of Appeal
- The Fourth Ground of Appeal
- Finding of prejudice was permissible
- the Council asserted that “ Contrary to the Tribunal’s analysis, it is not ‘unfair’ that individuals in the latter scenario lose their right to an EHC Plan – that is just a consequence of them moving
- the Council asserted that the “ Tribunal appears to have assumed that transferring an EHC Plan under regulation 15 procedure guarantees continuity of provision in the terms of the inherited EHC Plan ”
- Pause of EHCP
- the Code of Practice provided, inter alia, that local authorities should ensure that their provision did not disadvantage children because of their parents’ lifestyle, including deployment and to cons
- the Armed Forces Covenant contained in the 2006 Act required the local authority, when exercising that discretionary power, to have due regard to the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces
- s.45(1) bestowed a discretion on a local authority to cease to maintain an EHCP: “a local authority may cease to maintain an EHC plan for a child”. That was also, apparently, the view of the Secretary
- the question before the Tribunal was whether the Council came to the correct conclusion that “T is no longer in full-time education or training in England from September 2021. Accordingly, T’s Educati
- the Council precluded itself from answering the question of suitable alternative provision by (i) contravening regulation 31 of the 1996 Regulations by failing to consult with the parents and (ii) by
- The 1996 Regulations/The Belonging Regulations
- the effect of the amendment effected by the insertion of regulation 2(4) in light of that background the statement in paragraph 2.4 of the consultation paper to the effect that “The forthcoming Children, Skills and Learning Bill will address the mean
- the position given that that legislative amendment was apparently not made good the DCFS 2009 “Guidance on Looked After Children with Special Educational Needs placed out-of-authority”
- The Council’s Further Submissions
- in R(L) the Court at paragraph 17 expressly found that regulation 7 of the Belonging Regulations applied on the facts. (Footnote: 1 ) However, in the present case, the parents were not able properly t
- the decision was inconsistent with R(G) , a later authority. It was evident from the judgment in R(G) that the High Court heard full argument about ordinary/habitual residence principles and cited rel
- the Belonging Regulations had been amended since the decision in R(L) by insertion of regulation 2(4). The case of R(G) considered the Belonging Regulations in their amended form, which was another re
- The 2009 consultation paper
- the intention, but in any event certainly the form , of the amendment to the Belonging Regulations implemented through regulation 2(4) was completely at odds with that approach The effect of the amendment effected by the insertion of regulation 2(4)
- The statement in paragraph 2.4 of the consultation paper
- The DCFS 2009 Guidance
- Conclusion
- The Parents’ Submissions
- s.24(1) of the 2014 Act should be interpreted as denoting a test of ordinary residence the judgment in R(L) was no longer good law. The legal effect of regulation 2(4) of the Belonging Regulations was simply that they did not dictate the meaning of s
- Submissions
- guidance from a public authority about the interpretation to be given to a statutory term might be persuasive authority: Hyman and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2022] EWCA Civ 185 , [20
- The Parents’ Further Submissions
- The Council’s Further Submissions
- there was no reference to the Belonging Regulations – supporting the Council’s position that they were irrelevant
- the Department supported the Council’s contention that the decision to cease to maintain was discretionary and could arise in situations where a family moved abroad (page 4 of the Guidance). Consisten
- it did not consult with T’s parents as required by regulation 31(1)(b)
- disagreement resolution services; and advice and information about matters relating to the special educational needs of children and young people; and
- Jurisdiction
- R(G)
- The Belonging Regulations
- the intention, but in any event certainly the form , of the amendment to the Belonging Regulations implemented through regulation 2(4) was completely at odds with that approach
- A Child “in the Authority’s Area”
- R(Stewart)
- The Armed Forces Act 2006
- https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9072/CBP-9072.pdf .)
- Application of the Ordinary/Habitual Residence Test
- The Second Ground of Appeal
- The Third Ground of Appeal
- The Fourth Ground of Appeal
- Conclusions