Bradshaw, R (on the application of) v Office of the Schools Adjudicator

An adjudicator considering school-closure proposals must be satisfied that adequate financial resources will be available for implementation. The inquiry concerns the certainty and availability of funding, rather than the wisdom of the funding method or the desirability of competing expenditure. Resources may be available through an advance or bridging arrangement, even where repayment is expected from future school-site sales, provided the initial expenditure is not contingent on those sales. A decision letter must be read as a whole and in its practical context. Where statutory guidance normally requires written confirmation of funding, an apparent departure requires explanation.

The claimant, a parent and secretary of an action group, sought judicial review of the School Adjudicator’s approval of proposals by Wigan Council to close Mere Oaks Special School and provide replacement facilities elsewhere. Permission was granted only on the funding issue. The claimant argued that the Adjudicator had relied on an unsupported oral assurance, failed to consider the proposals afresh, ignored statutory guidance, and gave inadequate reasons. The central issue was whether the Adjudicator had rationally concluded that adequate financial resources would be available and whether the funding was dependent on future school-site sales.

1. Claim dismissed. The Adjudicator’s decision was lawful, although paragraph 26 of the decision letter, read alone, appeared inadequately reasoned.
2. Under School Standards and Framework Act 1998, Schedule 6, the Adjudicator had to consider the proposals afresh and be satisfied that adequate financial resources would be available. That obligation concerned the certainty of funding, not whether the chosen funding method was wise or whether the expenditure would prejudice other educational priorities.
3. The decision letter had to be read as a whole and practically. References to the papers for the School Organisation Committee meeting encompassed the Cabinet report and resolution, which provided for ring-fenced receipts, funding of any shortfall, and release of the anticipated receipts before sale. Those documents, together with the explanation given to the Committee, rationally supported the conclusion that the Council was committed to making the necessary funds available in advance.
4. The guidance stated that proposals could not normally be approved conditional upon capital being available from sales. That restriction addressed whether implementation funding was contingent on the sales themselves. Here the initial funds were available through the Council’s budget or an internal bridging arrangement; uncertainty about the timing or value of later sales affected repayment, not the availability of the implementation funds.
5. The reasoning could be elucidated by later evidence, subject to the caution identified in R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302. The court did not rely on witness statements to create a new or contradictory rationale. Costs were ordered against the claimant, not to be enforced without further order. Permission to appeal was refused, with 14 days from receipt of the transcript to file a notice of appeal.

The judgment is a first-instance judicial review decision. The court reviewed the School Adjudicator’s decision of 22 September 2004 approving Wigan Council’s school-closure proposals.