EAST SUSSEX CC v. SUSSEX CENTRAL AREA JUSTICES 2019 WL 00237607 (2019)
This is a judgment in a judicial review handed down in January 2019.
Derbyshire County Council v EM & DM  UKUT 240 (AAC)
The Upper Tribunal held that there is no absolute requirement that all EHC Plans must specify a school or other institution (or type of either) in Section 1 of an EHC Plan. The Upper Tribunal found that if the local authority thinks that no school or other institution (or type of either) would be appropriate for the child, the ‘naming’ duty under these sections and thus in section 1 of the EHC Plan cannot as a matter of law arise.
Statutory guidance is clear the Council is ‘responsible for arranging suitable education for permanently excluded pupils, and for other pupils who – because of illness or other reasons – would not receive suitable education without such arrangements being made’.
Norfolk County Council (18 013 496)
The Council expected the school to continue to meet the need and put the provision specified in the EHC plan in place until a suitable placement was found even once they have told the Council they cannot meet need. This is not acceptable. The duty is on the Council to secure the provision is made. Once it is on notice that the school is not making the provision then the Council must arrange the provision.
There is a further issue in that the Council was on notice that Y was not attending school because of her anxiety. Where a child cannot attend school because of illness the Council must arrange suitable full-time education. I have seen nothing to show the Council had any regard to its duties to Y in this respect.