Insights / News
Insights / News
The judgment can be found here: AB, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council.
The cases concerned young people living in the Bristol and Devon areas. They each had special educational needs and were entitled to services through Education Health and Care Plans provided by the local authorities pursuant to the Children and Families Act 2014 (the 2014 Act).
The local authorities entered into Safety Valve Agreements (SVA) with the Department for Education. Through these agreements the Department for Education provided significant additional Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding to the local authorities, with the intention of addressing deficits accumulated since the inception of the 2014 Act. Under these agreements, the local authorities in turn agreed to take steps to reduce (and over time eliminate) their DSG deficit and be subject to monitoring requirements.
The DSG is split into four funding blocks, one of which is the High Needs Block. This is used to fund services relating to SEND, which was the central focus of these cases.
The circumstances of these claims was not unique to these two local authorities – 36 other SVAs exist between the Department for Education and other local authorities. There is also significant concern around the adequacy of SEND funding across the county, which is the subject of national interest, with many local authorities experiencing DSG deficits due to overspend on their High Needs Block. The Safety Valve Programme was one of the means by which the Department for Education sought to address this issue. The case was, therefore, of wider interest beyond these particular claimants and local authorities.
Had the claims succeeded, this could have led to the quashing of these particular SVAs (although the appropriateness of that remedy was a point which was subject to significant dispute), which in turn might have led to the bankruptcy of the local authorities. The value of the SVAs to the local authorities were significant, providing around £50m and £90m of additional grant monies respectively.
The judgment addresses interesting legal issues. The case against Bristol was limited to an important point about the consultation duty under s.27(3) of the 2014 Act, and whether it was for the Court to determine if the duty had been triggered, or whether this was for local authorities to decide subject to Wednesbury review. This point was also taken in the case against Devon, but additional arguments concerning the Tameside duty, breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, and whether the Safety Valve Agreement frustrated the intention of Part 3 of the 2014 Act (applying the Padfield doctrine), were also taken.
The High Court has provided a detailed 95-page judgment. All the claims were rejected, meaning that the lawfulness of the SVAs between these local authorities and the Department for Education is not undermined.
Alex specialises in the areas of employment and education law. He 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, including: special educational needs, admissions, exclusions, safeguarding, discrimination, civil and public law claims concerning schools, colleges and universities.
To find out more about Alex, contact Nick Levett on +44 (0)20 7427 4908 or Chris Rowe on +44 (0)207 427 4911 for a confidential discussion.
News 14 Apr, 2025
Call: 2009
