A first reading of last Friday’s decision to reject a legal challenge to planned Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) changes in Surrey raises many questions and will add to the frustration of councils faced with contradictory pronouncements from the High Court.

It is not unknown for Judges to disagree with each other, but it is relatively rare for previous recent judgments to be dismissed as wrong in the way that Lady Sharp and Mrs Justice McGowan have done so in R (ex parte Hollow & others) v Surrey County Council [2019] EWHC 618. They clearly disapprove of earlier attempts to interpret the consultation provisions of the 2014 Children and Families Act. But of greater interest to the Institute, is the confusion that is sown in its attempts to distinguish the Surrey case from last year’s much-discussed Bristol City Council case.

It seems that the legal challenge in the Bristol case succeeded because the proposed budget cuts appeared to make service reductions inevitable, whereas in the Surrey situation, things were not as cut-and-dried and the Council claimed it had little or no idea what the changes might be or what impact they would have.

Until we examine the case in more detail, it matters not who is right and who is wrong on the law.

What IS clear is that councils face a tough time trying to make sense of the budgetary process, and who to consult, when. …

In the coming days, we will try to provide best practice advice on navigating this labyrinth.