B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington

Part IV of the Education Act 1996 requires a local education authority to maintain a statement of special educational needs only until the person’s 19th birthday. The statutory definition of “child” is inclusive, but cannot include adults aged 23, 30 or without an upper age limit. Section 2(5), concerning continuation of a secondary-education course, does not extend the duty beyond 19. Earlier authorities concerning responsibility for a child and appeal rights in unusual educational settings did not justify a different construction. The court declined to follow AW v Essex County Council as wrongly decided.

The claimant, a 19-year-old student with severe physical and communication difficulties, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Islington’s decision that his statement of special educational needs would lapse at the end of the school year in which he turned 19. He wished to remain at his existing sixth-form school to complete further A-level courses.

The claimant relied principally on AW v Essex County Council, which treated age as relevant but not decisive. The council argued that Part IV of the Education Act 1996 imposed no obligation after the claimant reached 19. The central issue was whether the duty to maintain a statement continued beyond that birthday.

1. Claim dismissed. Part IV of the Education Act 1996 imposed a duty to maintain a statement of special educational needs only until the person’s 19th birthday. Thereafter the local education authority had no further obligation under Part IV.
2. The definition of “child” in section 312(5) was inclusive, but could not be extended to include a person aged 23 or 30, or impose no upper age limit. The ordinary meaning of “child” remained decisive unless departure was necessary to avoid inconvenience, injustice or absurdity and accorded with Parliamentary intention.
3. Section 2(5), preserving the character of secondary education where a person continued a course begun before 18, concerned the type of education provided. It did not make a person over 19 a “child” for Part IV or require a statement to be maintained beyond that age.
4. Wolverhampton City Council v Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal & Smith and R(Hill) v Bedfordshire County Council concerned unusual cases involving responsibility for a child and appeal rights. They did not extend the age limit in section 312(5).
5. AW v Essex County Council was wrong. It confused the absence of a requirement that the authority remain responsible for a particular child with the separate requirement that the person be a child, and failed to address the ordinary meaning of “child”. The court declined to follow it.
6. The council’s continuation of the statement until the end of the academic year did not create a further statutory obligation. Permission to appeal was refused.

First-instance judicial review. Permission to appeal was refused.