How we help Get support SEN and disability law SEN and disability case law Case summaries R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M  ELR 62 This case concerned a 6-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, who had a Statement (the earlier version of an EHC plan). The Statement was issued in February 1996, and provided for weekly occupational therapy (one hour), speech and language therapy (one hour), and physiotherapy (not less than 45 minutes). From February to June, she did receive therapy, but only at about half the rates specified in the Statement. From June, she received none at all (the case was heard in October). The parents applied for judicial review of the LA’s failure to make the provision set out in the Statement. The LA argued that they had made the request to the health authority that these therapies be provided, and this fulfilled their own duty. As the health authority was the body which carried out the occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and physiotherapy, the LA argued they should not be responsible for it being delivered. The High Court disagreed, and ruled that the LA’s duty is owed personally to the child; it is non-delegable and can be enforced by mandatory order of the court following an application for judicial review. There is no case report available online. For more information, see our sections about complaining when the provision in an EHC plan is not made and judicial review.