Get information and support Free legal guides and template letters SEN and disability law SEN and disability case law Case summaries Hampshire County Council v GC & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 20 Case overview This case looked at what it means for a child or young person to be ‘in the LA’s area’, when EHC plans can cease (stop) and how LAs must carry out lawful decision-making processes. Let’s look at some of the legal points first. If Then a child or young person is in an LA’s area and has been: identified by the LA as someone who has or may have special educational needs (SEN), or brought to the LA's attention by any person as someone who has or may have SEN the LA is ‘responsible’ for them (section 24 of the Children and Families Act (CFA) 2014). an LA is thinking about ceasing to maintain (stopping) an EHC plan the LA must follow a legal process before it decides to do this. This includes consulting the child’s parent or the young person (regulation 31(1) of The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Regulations 2014). the LA is no longer responsible for the child or young person, or determines that it is no longer necessary for the plan to be maintained the LA may (but does not have to) decide to cease to maintain an EHC plan for them, following consultation (section 45(1) CFA 2014). an LA makes a cease to maintain decision the LA must: notify parents and young people of its decision and of appeal and mediation rights, among other required things (regulations 31(2) and 31(3) of The SEND Regulations 2014), and make sure the child or young person continues to receive all the special educational provision in their EHC plan (unless their parents have made suitable alternative arrangements instead) until either: the deadline to appeal against a cease to maintain decision has passed, or an appeal against a cease to maintain decision has been heard and dismissed (section 45(4) CFA 2014) This case involved a child who accompanied their parent, who was in the Royal Navy, on deployment abroad. It was understood by all that the family would return to their home in Hampshire at the end of the deployment (which they did). Initially the LA confirmed the EHC plan would be “paused” until the family returned. It then, without prior consultation or notice of appeal or mediation rights, notified the parents that it would cease to maintain (in other words, stop) the plan. The LA said it was no longer responsible for the child, because they weren’t physically present in the LA’s area. The parent appealed against the decision and the SEND Tribunal decided that the LA was wrong and the child’s EHC plan should remain in place because: it remained responsible for the child on the facts could “pause” or “freeze” providing the EHC plan whilst the family was overseas, and because the LA had failed to complete the required statutory process before deciding to cease to maintain the plan. The LA unsuccessfully appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal and then again to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal saw clearly that “There is a fundamental and frightening inequality of power” between children with SEN and their parents on one hand and LAs on the other, with LAs having the power to take decisions that have lifelong consequences for children and their families. With this in mind, it looked closely at the legal processes an LA must follow when making decisions about SEN, and the need for these to be complied with. It held that the Upper Tribunal had been right. LAs are responsible for children and young people with SEN who are not merely physically present in their area, but who are “ordinarily resident” in their area (also referred to as “habitually residence” in the Upper Tribunal appeal). For ordinary/habitual residence to transfer to somewhere else there has to be an intention of lasting character to make the other place the permanent or habitual centre of their interests . The duration of the absence alone doesn’t change where someone’s habitual residence is. All the circumstances must be considered. In this case, there were a number of relevant facts that indicated that the family’s ordinary residence hadn’t changed and remained in Hampshire: the family only moved because of the father’s deployment by the Royal Navy, which was anticipated to be for 3 years the family did not intend to settle permanently in Dubai and would be returning to Hampshire no matter where the father was posted in the UK (the Royal Navy makes arrangements for this type of arrangement, known as “get you home” arrangements) they kept their house in Hampshire, even though it was rented out the Navy provided their housing and education in Dubai and offered them a return flight to the UK each year to keep in touch with their family during the deployment overseas, and the child continued to be paid UK benefits and their father remained a UK tax payer. It also agreed that the fact that the LA would not be able to implement and provide the special educational provision set out in an EHC plan while a child or young person is out of the area is no excuse for ceasing to maintain an EHC plan. The Court saw that the LA had committed “egregious and manifest breaches” of legal process, and that “Consultation with the child or young person, the child’s parents and the child’s school is of fundamental importance to the fair and proper operation of the system” (paragraph 64). Further, it made clear that a decision to cease to maintain an EHC plan under section 45(1) CFA 2014 is likely to be invalid if it is taken in breach of the mandatory requirements of regulation 31 of The SEND Regulations 2014. Finally, LAs have discretion under section 45 CFA 2014 to continue to maintain a plan where they are “no longer responsible” for a child or young person. In this case, that discretion didn’t apply because the child was found to still be in the LA’s area so it had to continue their plan. What does this mean? Being ordinarily resident in an area When considering whether or not a child or young person is in its area, LAs must consider whether their absence means they are no longer ordinarily resident: and the duration of any absence alone won’t determine this. All the specific circumstances must be considered. Not every move of a family abroad will have a factual background pointing to a child’s ordinary residence remaining in an English LA. If a family sells their home or gives up the tenancy of their home in England and move abroad together because one of the parents has obtained a permanent job abroad, it may be very difficult to argue successfully that the child remains ordinarily resident in England and their LA remains ‘responsible’. Children and young people who are temporarily absent abroad or in a different part of the UK, even for lengthy periods of months or years, however will nevertheless retain their rights to an EHC plan maintained by the LA where they ordinarily reside. This point is particularly important for children in care, the children of armed forces personnel and the children of separated or divorced parents, who may live in different areas of the country or the world but remain ordinarily resident in a particular LA. If your LA consults with you as a parent of a child due to temporarily leave (or who has temporarily left) the LA area on the basis it is not responsible, you should explain that your child remains ordinarily resident, and why/which circumstances apply. What an LA can do if a child or young person with an EHC plan remains ‘ordinarily resident’ but physically absent from its area The CFA 2014 has two mechanisms which allow an LA effectively to “pause” or to “freeze” the plan in those circumstances. It can either: satisfy itself that the parent or the young person has organised suitable alternative provision for the duration of the absence (which relieves it of its duty to secure special educational provision), or reassess the needs of the child or young person for the period they are absent from the area. This means an LA cannot refuse to maintain an EHC plan for a child or young person who temporarily moves to live elsewhere. Instead, LAs remain responsible for maintaining EHC plans for children and young people who ordinarily live in the local area and cannot assume that an absence is not temporary simply because it is not short-lived. They must maintain EHC plans unless it is clear that the child or young person is not merely absent on a temporary basis. Duty to consult and follow legal processes An LA’s decision to cease to maintain an EHC plan may be held invalid and set aside by a SEND Tribunal if the LA takes the decision without following the procedural requirements in regulation 31 of the SEND Regulations 2014. The Court looked at the duty to consult and follow legal process more widely, and held that if an LA makes any of the following decisions in breach of the mandatory regulations which govern them, including consultation, the decision will be liable to be held invalid and set aside: a decision not to secure an EHC needs assessment, or a needs re-assessment for the child or young person a decision that it is not necessary for special educational provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan where an EHC plan is maintained for the child or young person, decisions about the special educational needs as specified in the plan, the special educational provision specified in the plan, or the school or other institution named in the plan, or the type of school or other institution specified in the plan, or a decision not to amend or replace an EHC plan it maintains for the child or young person following a review or re-assessment. This means that LAs will have to take much more care to properly comply with the mandatory procedural steps they are required to take when making important decisions to do with SEN provision. If they do not, they may well find that their decisions are invalidated by a SEND Tribunal. On appeal, parents and young people should raise all issues relating to a failure to consult or follow legal process (to make sure the SEND Tribunal is aware of procedural faults) as well as the reasons why the LA remains responsible for the child or young person, or it is still necessary for the plan to be maintained. The full report Hampshire County Council v GC & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 20 is available online. It includes other references to law and guidance, including that which is specifically relevant to children with parents in the armed forces. See also information on if your LA takes your EHC plan away. Please note, when a child/young person permanently moves to a different LA area within England, rather than overseas, there is a legal process for their EHC plan to transfer to the new LA. Manage Cookie Preferences