Cardiff Council v X & Anor

Cardiff Council v X & Anor

The Tribunal erred in law by applying the three-stage IM analysis and treating parental preference as determinative, rather than focusing on the statutory criteria in section 48 of the 2018 Act. The correct approach is to apply section 48 directly, considering whether the child’s interests require the ALP to be made at a particular school and whether it is appropriate, with parental preference being a relevant but not decisive factor. The Tribunal’s error was substantial and required the decision to be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Parties
Appellant: Cardiff Council; Respondents: Mr & Mrs X (Parents of X)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment on Appeal From Education Tribunal for Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; decision quashed in part and remitted; permission to appeal on Ground 2 refused.
Legal Topics
Additional Learning Needs, Parental School Preference, Individual Development Plan, Statutory Interpretation, School Admissions, Special Educational Needs
Education Law Administrative Law Disability Law Additional Learning Needs Parental School Preference Individual Development Plan Statutory Interpretation School Admissions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cardiff Council

Appellant

Mr & Mrs X (Parents of X)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment on Appeal From Education Tribunal for Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Education Tribunal for Wales erred in law by naming School A in Section 2D of X’s Individual Development Plan under section 48 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in specifying 27.5 hours of Teaching Assistant support per week in Section 2B of the IDP

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by applying the three-stage IM analysis and treating parental preference as determinative, rather than focusing on the statutory criteria in section 48 of the 2018 Act. The correct approach is to apply section 48 directly, considering whether the child’s interests require the ALP to be made at a particular school and whether it is appropriate, with parental preference being a relevant but not decisive factor. The Tribunal’s error was substantial and required the decision to be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; decision quashed in part and remitted; permission to appeal on Ground 2 refused.

Orders

  • The decision of the Education Tribunal for Wales dated 10 October 2024 is quashed insofar as School A is named in Section 2D of the Individual Development Plan; otherwise, the decision stands.
  • The case is remitted to the Education Tribunal for Wales for reconsideration and determination by a differently constituted panel of the issue of whether Section 2D of X’s Individual Development Plan should name a maintained school under section 48.