J, R (on the application of) v Vale Of Glamorgan C.C.

A local education authority must provide free transport where the statutory conditions require it, but the duty is not automatic whenever a child attends a distant school. The authority must consider what arrangements are necessary to facilitate attendance, having regard to the availability of a suitable nearer school.

An authority may lawfully refuse transport to a distant school where it has offered a suitable nearer school, the parents have declined it, and the child is nevertheless receiving education and attending regularly. A school is not unsuitable merely because it has a limited ethnic mix or because difficulties at a previous school might recur.

J challenged the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s refusal to pay transport costs to F Comprehensive School, outside walking distance of his home. The Council considered S Comprehensive School to be a suitable nearer school. J’s parents relied on bullying and racial abuse at his primary school, medical evidence, S’s racial composition, and later the contention that no place was available at S.

Elias J dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal considered whether S was suitable, whether a place was available, and whether the Council remained obliged to provide transport after J attended F.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Council’s decision of 1 August 2000 was not quashed, and no order of mandamus was made.
2. Sections 411, 444 and 509 of the Education Act 1996 constrain the authority’s discretion. Transport may be required where refusal would be perverse, but the authority is not automatically required to fund attendance at any distant school chosen by the parents.
3. The Court explained R v Devon County Council, ex parte George [1989] 1 AC 574. Its relevant principle was the link between the transport provision and the parental attendance obligation under section 444. Statements that pupils outside walking distance would in all cases receive free transport were treated as obiter and could not be applied literally.
4. S was a suitable nearer school. Its limited ethnic mix, the previous bullying, and the medical material did not compel the conclusion that only a multi-racial school was suitable. The judge was entitled to refuse relief despite observing that fuller evidence might have been desirable.
5. The later uncertainty about S’s entry list did not justify mandamus. J’s parents had declined the nearer place and continued sending him to F. He was receiving education and apparently attending regularly. The Council was therefore entitled to maintain its view that transport to F was unnecessary.
6. Staughton LJ agreed, while qualifying the view that a general practitioner necessarily lacked relevant expertise. Chadwick LJ agreed with the dismissal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): J, R (on the application of) v Vale Of Glamorgan C.C. [2001] EWCA Civ 593 — appeal dismissed.
• High Court: Elias J dismissed the application for judicial review.