Case overview 

In this case, the local authority (LA) refused to name the school the parents had asked for because it would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources. This was because the provision that would be needed for him in the parent’s choice of school would be far more expensive than the place at the LA’s choice of school (which the SEND Tribunal considered was better able to meet his needs).

The High Court made some useful comments about what the efficient use of resources means and said how LAs and Tribunals must look at this:

“... [the LA] has to look at the figures, decide whether there is an additional cost, and then do a balancing exercise weighing the additional cost against the parents’ preference ... it is partly a factual exercise and partly a balancing exercise.” 

What does this mean?

A two-stage process is needed to reach a decision about whether naming a setting is incompatible with the efficient use of resources. First, an LA or SEND Tribunal must work out whether one setting is more expensive than the other. If so, then they must work out whether the additional cost involved in meeting the parent’s choice is justified.

This case remains relevant for naming a school in an EHC plan, because the language which the judgement looked at is now in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

No case report is available online.

For more information, see our section on choosing a school when you have an EHC plan.