Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 391 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	HS 1444 2013
Appellant:	Haining v Warrington Borough Council
Respondent:	Warrington Borough Council (SEN)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge D. Williams
Date Of Decision:	02/04/2014
Date Added:	27/08/2013
Main Category:	Special educational needs
Main Subcategory:	Special educational provision - naming school
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Court of Appeal decision reported as [2014] AACR 28. Special educational provision – naming of school – unreasonable public expenditure – meaning of “public expenditure” in section 9 of the Education Act 1996 – wide and narrow interpretations considered The appellant’s son had significant special educational needs. His parents wanted him to attend School A, an independent residential school. The local authority named School B, a maintained day special school, on his statement, but accepted that some residential respite care at School A would also be required. On the parent’s appeal the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) decided that a placement at School A would be much more expensive than at School B. However, in doing so, it only took into account the costs to the local authority’s education budget (not the respite care and other costs). The Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld that decision and the parents appealed further. The issue before the Court of Appeal was how the words “public expenditure” should be interpreted and whether, when comparing the cost of placements at the two schools, the local authority and the F-tT should have limited the comparison to the costs that were to be met from the former’s education budget (the narrow interpretation); or taken into account all the costs to be met from public expenditure, including respite care and other matters (the wide interpretation). Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the correct meaning of the words “public expenditure” in section 9 was expenditure incurred by a public body, as opposed to expenditure incurred by a private body. This interpretation accords with the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. If it had been intended to limit the expenditure referred to in section 9 to expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or local authorities in the exercise of education functions, the section could and would have said so. In enacting paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act, Parliament did not seek to reproduce the language of section 9. A natural reading of section 9 clearly and unequivocally supported the wider interpretation. There was no obvious purpose that would be better served by adopting the narrow interpretation and none of the submissions made on behalf of the local authority justified giving section 9 a strained and unnatural meaning (paragraphs 27 to 37); 2. in reaching its conclusion the court placed no weight on the terms of the Local Education Authorities and Children’s Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010 and did not consider that Parliament intended to effect any substantive change to the 1996 Act by substituting “local authority” for “local education authority” (paragraph 38); 3. the UT erred in holding that, for the purposes of section 9, the F-tT was entitled to leave out of account the respite care and other costs that were met from public expenditure but were not met from the Council’s education budget. If those costs had not been excluded then the cost to the public purse of placing the appellant’s son at A School was lower than placing him at B School. In these circumstances, it was impossible to say that, if the UT judge had directed himself correctly, he would have reached the same conclusion as he did (paragraph 41). The Court remitted the case to the F-tT for reconsideration in the light of its judgment. followed. The UT judge has granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the meaning of "unreasonable public expenditure" in section 9 of the Education Act 1996. (Haining v Warrington Borough Council). [2014] EWCA Civ 398 02.04.14.
Decision(s) to Download:	HS 1444 2013-00.doc [2014] AACR 28bv.doc