ER, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2014] EWCA Civ 1407 (29 October 2014)

ER, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2014] EWCA Civ 1407 (29 October 2014)

The failure to provide suitable education was a consequence of the decision to name an unsuitable school in the SEN statement, which was subject to appeal to SENDIST; therefore, s 26(6)(a) excludes the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to investigate or recommend compensation for that period.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1407
Parties
Claimant/appellant: ER; Defendant/respondent: THE COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN); Interested Party: LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Government Ombudsman Jurisdiction, Special Educational Needs, Compensation for Service Failure, Tribunal Appeals Exclusion
Education Law Administrative Law Public Law Local Government Ombudsman Jurisdiction Special Educational Needs Compensation for Service Failure Tribunal Appeals Exclusion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ER

Claimant/appellant

THE COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN)

Defendant/respondent

LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does s 26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 exclude the Ombudsman's jurisdiction where a right of appeal to SENDIST exists?
  2. 2 Can the Ombudsman investigate and recommend compensation for service failures resulting from decisions already appealed to a tribunal?

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to provide suitable education was a consequence of the decision to name an unsuitable school in the SEN statement, which was subject to appeal to SENDIST; therefore, s 26(6)(a) excludes the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to investigate or recommend compensation for that period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No jurisdiction for Ombudsman to investigate or recommend compensation for second period
  • No further remedy granted