O, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Hammersmith And Fulham

Interim relief requiring a local authority to place a disabled child at a particular school should not ordinarily be granted on paper or after notice so short that the authority cannot provide a properly considered response. Such relief may substantially determine the outcome because the child’s placement, development and disruption on removal can affect the later substantive decision. The proper course will normally be an urgent directions hearing focused on the child’s immediate needs, the conduct and timetable of the proceedings, and interim measures falling short of a placement decision. The court should then consider whether an interim-relief hearing or an early substantive hearing is appropriate.

The claimant was a severely disabled child whose family sought urgent relief concerning his educational placement. An application was made on five days’ notice for an order placing him at a particular school. Simon J directed an expedited hearing, making clear that it was not to be the hearing of the interim-relief application for placement. By the hearing before Ouseley J, the parties had agreed arrangements for the immediate vacation period and were considering the appropriate route and timetable for resolving the wider dispute.

1. Procedure for urgent placement cases. An order for interim placement at a particular school should not be granted on paper, or at a hearing on notice too short to enable the local authority to respond fully. The apparent urgency must be balanced against the need for careful consideration by the authority and the court.
2. Effect of placement relief. Placement at a school may be akin to substantive relief. The child’s attendance and development there, and the disruption caused by a later removal, may become relevant to the substantive decision.
3. Directions hearing. The normal course should be an urgent directions hearing, rather than a hearing directed to interim placement. The court should hear the parties’ explanations of the child’s immediate needs, decide how the claim should proceed, consider an interim hearing or an early rolled-up hearing, and assess whether interim measures short of placement are required.
4. Application and costs. That practical course had enabled arrangements for the immediate vacation period and discussion of the future procedure. The usual order would be costs in the case, but because the claimant continued to pursue placement relief contrary to the purpose of the hearing, the order was no order as to costs. Permission was given to rely on the transcript.