Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MATHEW GULLICK (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) ____________________
Rebecca Davies (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors) for the Claimant Naomi Parsons (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant Hearing date: 8th October 2019 ____________________
A request was then made that such accommodation should be provided in London, preferably within the London Borough of Lewisham. This was because M was at that point attending a specialist pre-school in the borough, which had a number of autistic children, and also because he was undergoing assessment by the local authority in Lewisham for an Education and Health Care Plan ("EHCP"), i.e. a plan setting out M's educational, health and social needs and the support necessary to meet those needs.
I respectfully agree with that analysis insofar as a rigid adherence by the Defendant to her affordability criteria may, in particular instances, result in unlawfulness on a Wednesbury basis, notwithstanding that the Defendant's published policy has been complied with. Indeed, Ms Parsons did not submit that Mr Sheldon QC's judgment should not be followed in terms of the principle that I have set out; rather, she submitted that in the present case, the stage had not been reached where the Defendant's conduct was unlawful.
A similar point is made in the Defendant's evidence, at paragraph 56.d of Mr Williams' witness statement:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.