Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Welsh additional learning needs case

A Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales and Lord Hamblen concluded earlier this month that the application did not raise an arguable point of law.

The case of R (on the application of AY (by his mother and litigation friend SJG)) v The Vale of Glamorgan Council concerned AY, a child with additional learning needs.

The council 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, however, 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.

The mother stated she was unable to participate fully 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 the following 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.

In March 2025, the council agreed to move AY to a specialist school.

On 22 May 2025, the Court of Appeal found against AY on the first ground.

Lord Justice Lewis said: “Neither the Act nor the Code confer a right for a parent to be accompanied by a solicitor of their choosing at a meeting forming part of the process of a review of an IDP under section 23 of the Act.”

The Court of Appeal declined to decide the second ground on the basis that it was academic and highly fact specific. It was “unlikely that any decision we reached would be of real practical assistance in future cases”, Lord Justice Lewis said.

The Supreme Court has now refused permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Lottie Winson