9
(1)
A local authority may not . . . cease to maintain, a statement except in accordance with paragraph . . . 11.
(2)
Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply where the local authority —
(a)
cease to maintain a statement for a child who has ceased to be a child for whom they are responsible, or
(b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)
are ordered to cease to maintain a statement under section 326(3)(c), . . .
(d)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cases considering Schedule 27, paragraph 9 6
[2011] EWCA Civ 1315 · 15 November 2011Disapplies
The judgment applies paragraph 9 as restricting cessation of a statement except in the circumstances specified in paragraph 11, subject to paragraph 9(2) (see paras [23]; [26]; [42]).
The judgment treats paragraph 9(1) as preventing cessation except in accordance with paragraph 11, subject to the specific exception in paragraph 9(2) (see paras [23]; [42]).
The judgment applies paragraph 9(2) so that a statement may cease when the person is no longer a child for whom the authority is responsible. No formal decision under paragraph 11, and therefore no tribunal appeal, is required (see paras [26]-[27]; [42]-[43]).
[2008] EWCA Civ 661 · 16 June 2008Interprets
Cited only.
Interprets paragraph 9(1) as imposing a general prohibition on ceasing to maintain a statement except in accordance with paragraph 11. It formed the starting point for the Court’s analysis of the relationship between paragraphs 9 and 11. (see paras [17]; [90]-[92])
Interprets paragraph 9(2) as applying to the normal case where the authority’s responsibility has ended and the statement has no continuing point, such as an agreed move into further education. It does not prevent paragraph 11 applying where schooling ended unexpectedly and continuing provision remains a live possibility. (see paras [93]-[109]; [112])
[2000] EWCA Civ 262 · 19 October 2000Limits
The court considered whether Schedule 27 applied to an amendment merely replicating a Tribunal order. It doubted that the procedure was intended for that situation, but held that the authority’s erroneous document had not purported to follow the procedure. (see paras [25], [38]-[39])
What each judgment says about Schedule 27, paragraph 9 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.