Haining v Warrington Borough Council

Haining v Warrington Borough Council

The correct interpretation of 'public expenditure' in section 9 of the Education Act 1996 is expenditure incurred by any public body, not limited to the local authority's education budget. Savings in respite care costs and other non-educational costs must be considered when evaluating parental preference for school...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Wendy Haining; Respondent: Warrington Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Special Educational Needs, Statutory Interpretation, Public Expenditure, Parental Preference
Education Law Administrative Law Special Educational Needs Statutory Interpretation Public Expenditure Parental Preference

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Haining

Appellant

Warrington Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of 'public expenditure' under section 9 of the Education Act 1996
  2. 2 Scope of costs to be considered when assessing parental preference for school placement

Ratio Decidendi

The correct interpretation of 'public expenditure' in section 9 of the Education Act 1996 is expenditure incurred by any public body, not limited to the local authority's education budget. Savings in respite care costs and other non-educational costs must be considered when evaluating parental preference for school placement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration in light of this judgment