In R (AB) v BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL and ES and JX v DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL (2025) EWCC 1 a judicial review challenge failed to the entry by the Councils into “Safety Valve Agreements” with the Department of Education in relation to deficits in the Dedicated Schools Grant pursuant to Section 14 of the Education Act 2002. The allegations included breach of the duty to consult under Section 27(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 and of the PSED. Linden J accepted (para 18) that there was a “powerful reason” for the Councils to take steps to address their deficits at the times when they decided to participate in the Safety Valve Programme and to enter into their SVA.
Section 27 imposes a duty to keep education and care provision under review. Section 30 imposes a duty to publish information about the provision which it expects to be available. Linden J (from para 100) reviewed the case law, especially the Surrey, Redbridge and Hackney cases. He concluded (paras 116-119 inc) that it was for the local authority, subject to Wednesbury, to determine whether circumstances for review/ consultation have arisen (paras 120-132 inc) and that the decisions to enter into the SVAs without carrying out a Section 27 review were not irrational; that (paras 134-153 inc) there was no failure to have “due regard” to relevant matters for the purposes of the PSED; that (paras 154-169 inc) there was no breach of Tameside; and (paras 170-183 inc) that there was no breach of Padfield.