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

A policy governing specialist further-education funding must be read as guidance and as a whole. A general two-year funding policy does not create rigid criteria or remove the decision-maker’s discretion to act flexibly and equitably on a case-by-case basis.

Where a disabled person seeks further provision, the decision-maker must properly understand the evidence, make reasonable inquiries where necessary, and comply with the Equality Act 2010 duties. Treating policy guidance as mandatory criteria, failing to engage with evidence of disability-related educational need, and failing to explain why evidence is insufficient may amount to discrimination, breach of the public sector equality duty, inadequate inquiry and unlawful fettering of discretion.

The claimant, a protected party with substantial additional learning needs, challenged decisions by the Welsh Ministers concerning funding for continued specialist education at Coleg Elidyr and the updating of his assessment under section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

The Welsh Ministers argued that the claim was out of time, that an informal appeal was an adequate alternative remedy, and that the policy lawfully limited further funding to exceptional cases. The central issues were whether the policy imposed rigid conditions, whether the decisions adequately addressed the claimant’s disability-related evidence and educational needs, and whether the statutory equality duties and the duty to inquire had been complied with.

1. Preliminary issues. The claim was brought promptly. The informal appeal process was not, on the particular facts, conveniently and effectively available or equivalently efficacious because it could not determine all the legal and procedural issues raised. The letter of 6 September 2024 was not a justiciable decision, but advice about the procedure for seeking an updated assessment.
2. Construction of the policy. The policy had to be read as a whole and objectively, as administrative guidance rather than legislation. Although it stated that an updated section 140 assessment must precede an application for an additional programme, that wording did not create a rigid requirement. The Welsh Ministers retained a discretion and were required to act flexibly and fairly on a case-by-case basis. The approach in R(DJ) v Welsh Ministers was adopted.
3. Discrimination. The decision of 28 November 2024 improperly treated the policy as imposing criteria which had to be met. It lost sight of equitable case-by-case treatment, misunderstood the claimant’s case as merely seeking to continue learning, and failed to explain why the evidence was insufficient or seek further evidence. The claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising from his disability within section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The Welsh Ministers did not establish that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If necessary, reasonable adjustments under section 20 had also not been made.
4. Equality duty and inquiry. The public sector equality duty applied to the individual decisions. Although general regard may have been had to equality objectives, the identified flaws showed that the required rigorous, fact-sensitive consideration had not occurred. The Welsh Ministers should have made inquiries about the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, including by seeking further information from Careers Wales.
5. Outcome. The claim succeeded to the extent identified above. The parties were invited to agree an order and consequential directions within 21 days, with written submissions on unresolved matters of relief.