Alex Line and Monique Bouffé appear before Court of Appeal in important SEND law case

The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in Hampshire County Council v GC & GC [2026] EWCA Civ 20. Alex Line and Monique Bouffé were instructed to represent the Appellant local authority.

Alex also appeared in the Upper Tribunal below. The decision provides important points of clarity about legal duties under the Children and Families Act 2014 that will affect children and young people with SEND, and local authorities, nationally.

The case had unique facts, concerning a service family who were living abroad due to the father’s position in the navy. The period of absence was due to be three years but it transpired to be two. The local authority decided to cease to maintain their child’s EHC Plan under s.45 of the Children and Families Act 2014 on the basis that the family were no longer in its area. The parents challenged this decision through an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal which upheld their appeal primarily because the local authority had not conducted any consultation prior to reaching that decision (which there is a requirement for under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014). The local authority gained permission to appeal that decision, which was heard by Upper Tribunal Judge West, who described it as a ‘test case’. He found that the Tribunal had been entitled to reach its decision and, moreover, that a test of ordinary or habitual residence applied to the question of whether a child was in a local authority’s area (Hampshire County Council v GC & GC [2024] UKUT 128 (AAC)). That created tension with the earlier case of JG v Kent County Council [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin) in which the High Court found, in the context of a judicial review claim, that this was not the test (albeit commented that it might provide “indirect pointers”). The local authority appealed the Upper Tribunal’s decision, and was granted permission to appeal by Andrews LJ on the basis of the public importance of the issues involved.

The decision of the Court of Appeal (Bean, King and Stuart-Smith LLJ) is of importance in that it clarifies:

1. In the context of a cease to maintain decision under s.45(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014, the question of compliance with the requirement to consult will be capable of being considered by the First-tier Tribunal, but the effect that question has on an appeal will depend on the circumstances and it does not necessarily follow that a failure to consult will vitiate a decision leading to the upholding of an appeal (paragraphs 60-64).
2. The test for determining responsibility under s.24 of the Children and Families Act 2014 is of ‘ordinary residence’, despite the absence of this phrase in that provision. However, in the case of a family being absent from a local authority’s area, whether they remain ordinarily resident within it will depend on the circumstances, extent of the absence and reasons for it (paragraphs 66-78).
3. There is now authoritative guidance that where a child or young person is absent from an area (but remaining ordinarily resident within it), there are statutory mechanisms available to local authorities which can be used to avoid risk of them being placed in breach of s.42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 (i.e. the duty to secure special educational provision). This means that, although EHCPs may still need to be maintained in such circumstances, from the perspective of their implementation, local authorities can ‘pause’ or ‘freeze’ the provision of education (paragraph 79).

The Court of Appeal’s decision can be found here: Hampshire County Council v GC & Anor – Find Case Law – The National Archives.

This is now the leading case on such issues. It will need to be considered carefully by those involved with special educational needs law on all sides, and it remains to be seen how law and practice will be developed in the light of it. Alex and Monique are well placed to provide advice and training on these and related issues of special educational needs law.

FInd out more

Alex Line specialises in the areas of employment and education law. Alex has significant experience of education law, and has been ranked in both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 for several years in relation to this area. His work encompasses the full spectrum of education law. He acts for individuals, local authorities, and education institutions alike. Alex also undertakes work for the Secretary of State for Education and Department for Education in his capacity as a member of the Attorney General’s panel of counsel, in relation to which he has been involved in complex policy related advisory work, instructed alone or led by KCs, in addition to public law and regulatory representation work in courts and tribunals acting for these public bodies.

Monique Bouffé practices in Employment & Discrimination, Education and Public Law and brings with years of advocacy experience both at the Bar and from years prior within the Charity Sector. She acts for Appellants and Respondents in the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs & Disability) and advises on appeals to the Upper Tribunal. She is currently junior counsel, led by Alexander Line, in a case in the Court of Appeal. Prior to coming to the Bar, Monique worked closely with children, families, schools and Local Authorities in her work as a Young Woman’s Advocate at Safer London. As a result, she is very familiar with schools and Children’s Social Care.

To find out more about Alex or Monique, contact Nick Levett on +44 (0)20 7427 4908 or Mark Gardner on +44 (0)20 7427 4909 for a confidential discussion.

News 28 Jan, 2026