James Humphries, R (on the application of) v The Welsh Ministers

The claimant, a protected party with very substantial additional learning needs, challenged three communications from the Welsh Ministers refusing further funding and refusing an updated section 140 assessment under the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for continued specialist further education at Coleg Elidyr. The court treated the matter as judicial review of administrative decisions and considered statutory duties under the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (including s.140 and ss.32, 34, 41), the Welsh Government policy on specialist further education, and equality law (Equality Act 2010 ss.15, 20, 149 and Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR).

The court found that the decision of 28 November 2024 was flawed: the Welsh Government had elevated policy guidance into rigid criteria, misunderstood the case made for the claimant, failed to explain why evidence was insufficient and did not make reasonable inquiries. Those failures meant the decision was discriminatory under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, breached duties to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 where relevant, and involved inadequate regard to the public sector equality duty. The court held that the 28 November 2024 decision could not stand. The court rejected a preliminary challenge to the justiciability of a September 2024 administrative response and found that the informal appeal process did not provide a convenient and effective alternative remedy on these facts.

This case concerned a judicial review brought by James (by his litigation friend) challenging the Welsh Ministers' responses to requests for further funding and for an updated section 140 assessment so that he could continue on a two-year Foundation programme into a further "Skills for Life" programme at Coleg Elidyr. The claimant relied on evidence of continued and specialised need, including a June 2024 educational psychologist's report and positive progress at the Coleg. The defendant relied on its 2020 policy "Securing Provision for Young People with Learning Difficulties at Specialist Further Education Establishments", the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and claimed the policy permitted refusal absent exceptional circumstances.

Nature of the claim/application:

• The claimant sought judicial review of three Welsh Government letters/decisions (including letters of 6 September 2024 and 28 November 2024) refusing to consider further funding without an updated section 140 assessment and refusing the update when requested, and of aspects of policy application and process.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Welsh Government had unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating policy as rigid criteria.
• Whether the decision-making breached the Equality Act 2010 (ss.15, 20 and the public sector equality duty in s.149) and A2P1 ECHR by discriminating against the claimant and failing to make reasonable adjustments.
• Whether the Welsh Government had failed to make reasonable enquiries and to give sufficient reasons as to why evidence was insufficient to update the assessment.
• Whether the claim was time-barred or whether an alternative remedy (the informal appeal procedure) barred judicial review as inappropriate.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion:

• The court accepted that the policy is guidance and must be read flexibly. It concluded the wording in the 28 November 2024 decision had the effect of elevating guidance into rigid criteria and thereby unduly fettered discretion.
• The court held that the decision misunderstood and downplayed the claimant’s case (including the role of the Skills for Life programme in meeting long-term outcomes), failed to explain how the evidence was insufficient, and omitted reasonable inquiry into further evidence. Those shortcomings amounted to discrimination under section 15 and to failures under the public sector equality duty and the reasonable adjustment duty where applicable.
• The court found the informal appeal process was not, on these facts, a convenient and effective alternative remedy and that the claim was brought promptly. It also accepted the Welsh Ministers’ contention in relation to the September 2024 procedural letter, finding that it did not amount to a standalone justiciable decision in the context in which it was sent.
• Accordingly, the claim succeeded to the extent that the 28 November 2024 decision was unlawful and could not stand. The court invited the parties to agree or apply for directions on relief.

The claim succeeds. The court held that the Welsh Ministers' 28 November 2024 decision was unlawful because (i) policy guidance had been treated as rigid mandatory criteria thereby fettering discretion; (ii) the decision-maker misunderstood the claimant's case and failed to explain how the evidence was insufficient or to seek further information; and (iii) those failures amounted to discriminatory treatment under the Equality Act 2010 and to breaches of the public sector equality duty and duties to make reasonable adjustments where engaged. The court rejected the submission that the September 2024 letter was not justiciable in context and found the informal appeal process was not an effective alternative remedy on these facts. The 28 November 2024 decision cannot stand and appropriate relief was to be considered after this judgment.