R (on the application of AY (by his mother and litigation friend SJG)) (Appellant) v The Vale of Glamorgan Council (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0118

Parties

Appellant(s)

AY

Respondent(s)

Vale of Glamorgan Council

Issue

(1) Was the Vale of Glamorgan Council entitled to refuse to allow the parents of AY, a child with additional learning needs, to be accompanied by a solicitor of their choosing at a meeting to review the management of AY’s learning needs? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in declining to decide whether the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s refusal was Wednesbury unreasonable on the basis that the question had become academic?

Facts

AY (the Appellant) is a child with additional learning needs residing in the Vale of Glamorgan. The Vale of Glamorgan Council (the Respondent) prepared an Individual Development Plan (‘IDP’) to support AY’s education. AY’s mother considered the educational provision AY received from the Council did not meet his learning needs. AY’s mother therefore issued judicial review proceedings against the Council on his behalf on 27 February 2024. On 4 March 2024, the Council contacted AY’s mother to arrange a review of AY’s IDP. AY’s mother asked that AY’s solicitor attend the meeting. The Council declined to permit the solicitor’s attendance on the grounds that his attendance would undermine the non-adversarial character of the meeting and require the presence of the Council’s legal advisors. AY’s mother states that she was unable to fully participate in the meeting in the absence of AY’s solicitor. The Council’s refusal to allow AY’s solicitor to attend the review was added to the judicial review claim as an additional ground. However, in July 2024 the High Court refused AY permission to apply for judicial review on all grounds. In June 2024, the Council issued AY a new IDP. AY’s mother disagreed with this IDP’s conclusions and therefore commenced separate proceedings on AY’s behalf at the Education Tribunal for Wales. On 2 October 2024, Lewison LJ granted AY permission to apply for judicial review on two grounds: 1) Parents of children with additional learning needs have a right under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 and the Additional Learning Needs Code for Wales 2021 to be accompanied by an advocate of their own choosing at an IDP review (or that it was beyond the Council’s powers to refuse to allow them to be so accompanied); 2) Alternatively, if the Council had a discretion, its refusal to allow the parents to be accompanied by their chosen advocate in the present case was Wednesbury unreasonable. (A decision is Wednesbury unreasonable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it). Lewison LJ ordered that AY’s claim be retained in the Court of Appeal. In March 2025, the Council agreed to move AY to a specialist school. This resolved the substantive disagreement about AY’s education. On 8 May 2025, the Court of Appeal found against AY on the first ground. The Court of Appeal declined to decide the second ground on the basis that it was academic and highly fact specific such that there was no public interest in deciding it.

Date of issue

17 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top