AY, R (on the application of) v Vale of Glamorgan County Borough County

The Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 does not give a parent an entitlement to have a solicitor or other lawyer present at a meeting held during an individual development plan review. Section 6 requires the local authority to have regard to the importance of enabling the child and parent to participate as fully as possible. It creates a mandatory consideration, not a right to legal representation. The authority decides how the review is conducted and who attends, subject to public-law review and the duty to consider section 6, relevant guidance in the Code of Additional Learning Needs, and other relevant factors. An IDP review under section 23 is separate from disagreement-resolution arrangements under section 68. Whether a particular refusal was irrational was an academic, fact-sensitive issue which the Court declined to determine.

AY, a child with additional learning needs, attended a specialist resource base identified in his individual development plan. His mother disputed aspects of the additional learning provision and brought judicial review proceedings under section 14(10) of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.

While the proceedings were ongoing, the respondent local authority arranged an annual IDP review under section 23. It refused to allow AY’s mother to bring the solicitor conducting the judicial review to the review meeting, although it offered an independent advocate. AY amended the claim to challenge that refusal on two grounds: first, that the Act or the Code gave a right to be accompanied by a chosen advocate; and, secondly, that the refusal was irrational or unreasonable. The High Court refused permission. By the time of the appeal, the review, subsequent IDP appeal and schooling arrangements had moved on. The Court therefore considered the statutory-interpretation issue but declined to decide the fact-specific public-law challenge.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Section 23 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 requires an annual IDP review. That is a function under Part 2, so section 6 applies.
2. Section 6 requires the authority, when deciding how to conduct the review, to have regard to the importance of enabling the child and parent to participate as fully as possible in decisions about the function. The matters in section 6 are mandatory considerations. They do not confer a right or entitlement to have a solicitor or other lawyer attend a review meeting.
3. The authority must also have regard to relevant guidance in the Code, including guidance concerning review meetings and measures facilitating participation. The Code does not create an entitlement to a chosen advocate. The authority must decide how the review is conducted and who attends, taking account of section 6, the Code, and other relevant factors. Its decision remains subject to judicial review on ordinary public-law principles, including irrationality.
4. The arrangements for an IDP review are made under section 23 and are distinct from the arrangements for avoiding or resolving disagreements under section 68. The fact that a review may help resolve disagreement does not bring it within section 68. Section 69 therefore does not supply a right to legal representation at the review meeting.
5. Paragraph 32.58 of the Code, even if advocacy services could include a solicitor chosen and funded by the parent, says only that such support may be useful. It does not confer an entitlement. R (Kumar) v Hillingdon London Borough Council was distinguishable because it concerned materially different statutory provisions governing mediation and an express provision permitting an advocate or supporter chosen by the parent to attend.
6. The Court exercised its discretion to decide the statutory-interpretation issue, because it was likely to recur and affected others. It declined to decide whether the particular refusal was irrational or unreasonable, since the issue was academic and intensely fact-specific. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. Lord Justices Phillips and Newey agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2025] EWCA Civ 671: dismissed the appeal and the claim for judicial review. It determined the statutory-interpretation ground but declined to determine the fact-specific irrationality ground.
2. High Court (Administrative Court in Wales) — permission to apply for judicial review was refused by HHJ Keyser KC on 19 July 2024. The court held that sections 6, 68 and 69 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, and the Code, did not confer a right to have a solicitor attend an IDP review meeting.