West & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council

The claim was a judicial review of the council's decision to withdraw funding for full-time nursery education for three-year-olds from September 2014. The court held that the council had failed to have due regard to its statutory duties under section 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and section 22 of the Childcare Act 2006 because members were not informed or directed to consider whether the provision was "sufficient" for the area and the effect on childcare sufficiency. The council also failed to discharge duties under sections 17 and 18 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to children in need. The public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) and duties under the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 were considered but not found to be unlawfully discharged. The decision was quashed.

This is a first-instance judicial review by parents challenging a cabinet decision to limit nursery education for three-year-olds to part-time (up to 15 hours) from September 2014 and to defer full-time provision until after a child's fourth birthday. The claimants sought relief quashing the decision and argued the council had failed to comply with a range of statutory duties.

Background and parties: For many years the council funded full-time nursery education for three-year-olds. The cabinet, facing a large budget shortfall, consulted and then decided on 8 January 2014 to reduce funded provision; the decision was "called in" and the scrutiny committee allowed it to take effect on 20 January 2014. The claim was listed for a rolled-up hearing.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimants sought judicial review on five grounds: (1) breach of section 22 Childcare Act 2006 (sufficiency of childcare); (2) breach of section 118 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (duty to secure sufficient nursery education); (3) failure to have due regard under section 149 Equality Act 2010 (public sector equality duty); (4) failure to have regard to duties under sections 17 and 18 Children Act 1989 (children in need/day care); and (5) failure to have regard to duties under the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (child poverty).

Issues for decision: The court considered whether the cabinet had been given adequate information and directed to the correct statutory framework so as to have "due regard" to its duties under the statutes and guidance, whether the Equality Impact Assessment was adequate to discharge the public sector equality duty, and whether the claim was brought promptly.

Court's reasoning and findings: The judge found that the material provided to cabinet did not draw members to their statutory duties under section 118 or section 22 nor provide a proper framework or analysis of childcare sufficiency in light of the proposed change; important evidence (notably the Childcare Sufficiency Audit and its refresh) was not before members and the EIA did not meaningfully analyse the impact on childcare availability for children in need. On those grounds the council had not, in substance, had due regard to the statutory duties and the decision was unlawful. The court held the public sector equality duty had been addressed sufficiently for present purposes and the child-poverty ground failed. The claim was brought promptly and permission was granted; the council's decision was quashed.

This is a first-instance judicial review. The court granted permission and allowed the claim: the council's decision is quashed. The judge concluded the council did not, in substance, have due regard to its statutory duties under section 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and section 22 of the Childcare Act 2006, and also failed to comply with duties under sections 17 and 18 of the Children Act 1989; the public sector equality duty and the child poverty measure grounds were not made out.