In R (AD) v Hackney LBC (2020) EWCA 518 the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the rejection of a challenge to a 5% cut to funding for one element of an Education, Health and Care Plan. The cut was alleged to have been unlawful on account of a failure to consult under Section 27 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The Court held that there was no such failure. They overruled first instances that such a duty arises whenever a local authority makes a decision which will necessarily affect the scope of outs SEND provision. The – per Bean LJ – “modest reduction in one element of SEND funding” was not sufficient to trigger a strategic review with the consequent requirement of widespread consultation. The Court left for another day (para 48j the issue of what level of major budget cuts or transformation of a local authority’s SEND provision would trigger a duty to consult wider than the Schools Forum either under Section 27 or at common law. If a local authority rationally concludes that a particular level of saving in SEND provision can be achieved without a significant adverse impact, but that a more drastic budget reduction, which it is not proposing to implement, might well have such an impact, that is not enough to bring Section 27 into play.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 8th, 2020 at 12:15 pm and is filed under Decision making and Contracts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.