Regina v Islington Borough Council Ex Parte Rixon: QBD 17 Apr 1996

The local authority regarded lack of resources or facilities as an insuperable obstacle to any further attempt to make provision under the 1970 Act.
Held: A Local Authority should allow for non-statutory guidance in assessing a disabled person’s education needs. Local authorities may only depart from the Secretary of State’s guidance for good reason.
Sedley J said: ‘In my judgment Parliament in enacting section 7(1) did not intend local authorities to whom ministerial guidance was given to be free, having considered it, to take it or leave it. Such a construction would put this kind of statutory guidance on a par with the many forms of non-statutory guidance issued by departments of state . . Parliament by section 7(1) has required local authorities to follow the path charted by the secretary of state’s guidance, with liberty to deviate from it where the local authority judges on admissible grounds that there is good reason to do so, but without freedom to take a substantially different course.’

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-1996, (1998) 1 CCLR 119, [1997] ELR 66

Statutes:

National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Goldsmith v The London Borough of Wandsworth CA 27-Aug-2004
The claimant, a very elderly lady had lived in a residential home for some time. She fell and was admitted to hospital. The respondent said she could only leave the hospital to go to a nursing home. She and her family sought her return to the . .
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
CitedLambeth London Borough Council v Ireneschild CA 16-Mar-2007
The tenant held a secure tenancy of a first floor flat of the Council. She was severely disabled and argued that the danger of injury meant that she should be allowed to occupy the empty ground floor flat. She complained at the way the authority had . .
CitedSavva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
CitedBarrett v Kirklees Metropolitan Council Admn 12-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the policy of the defendant to pay support to special guardians appointed under the 2002 Act at two thirds only of the rate it paid in fostering allowance.
Held: The policy was a substantial and insufficiently justified . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86975