Case summary

This case was heard under the old legal framework but is still relevant because the principles remain the same.

The child had a Statement of Special Educational Needs (an earlier version of an education, health and care (EHC) plan) which named the local authority’s (LA) preferred setting. Their parents disagreed and appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

The SEND Tribunal decided the parent’s preferred setting should be named. The LA disagreed. It said the SEND Tribunal had not applied the correct law or given adequate reasons. It also said both schools were suitable but the parent’s preferred setting cost more, and that extra cost meant it was not compatible with the efficient use of resources.

The High Court looked at the SEND Tribunal's decision and said it was clear that the SEND Tribunal did not consider the LA’s choice to be suitable for the child’s special educational needs based on the facts.

Because the LA’s choice was not suitable, it did not matter that the parent’s choice was more expensive. The High Court said, however, that if both schools had been suitable, an LA would be justified in sending a child to a less expensive option.

It also said there is no obligation on an LA to give a child the best possible education or to educate them to their maximum potential.

What does this mean?

This case confirms that:

• The cost of a placement is only relevant if the parent’s preferred setting and the LA’s preferred setting can both meet a child or young person’s needs.
• If only the parent’s preferred setting can meet the child’s needs, the cost of it is not relevant. This is because cost cannot be used to justify sending a child or young person to a setting which is not suitable for them.

However,

• If both settings can meet needs, then the LA does not have to agree to the more expensive placement. 
• There is no obligation on an LA to give a child or young person the best possible education or make sure they reach their full potential. 

This has been confirmed as the correct position for those with EHC plans in another case called Devon County Council v OH [2016] UKUT 292.

No case report is available online.

For further information, you can see our pages on what your LA should do to help and choosing a school when you have an EHC plan.

For further information, see our sections on what your LA should do to help and choosing a school when you have an EHC plan.