London Borough Of Enfield v (1) Teegan Edwards (2) London Borough of Haringey (SEN): [2026] UKUT 268 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 14 July 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The Court of Appeal in Hampshire County Council v GC and anor [2026] EWCA Civ 20 held that the question of whether a child or young person is ‘in’ a local authority’s area for the purposes of section 24 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014), and thus the responsibility of that local authority for the purposes of Part 3 of that Act, is to be determined by reference to the child or young person’s ‘ordinary residence’.
In this case, the Upper Tribunal holds that the ‘ordinary residence’ test to be applied is that set out by the House of Lords in R v Barnet LBC, ex p Shah [1983] 2 AC 309, as further explained by the Supreme Court in R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] UKSC 31, [2023] 1 WLR 2790. The approach to ‘ordinary residence’ for the purposes of a local authority’s social services functions (as set out by the Supreme Court in R (Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health [2015] UKSC 46, [2016] AC 137) does not apply in the special educational needs context.
Accordingly, a child or young person’s ‘ordinary residence’ for the purposes of the CFA 2014 may be different to their ‘ordinary residence’ for the purposes of the social care functions of the local authority. In particular, placement of a child or young person in accommodation arranged by a local authority may result in a change of ordinary residence for the purposes of the CFA 2014, even though responsibility for social care services remains with the placing authority. This is consistent with government policy that the local authority where the child lives knows their local schools and educational provision better, so they are better able to assess whether the child needs special educational provision on top of what is ordinarily available. Further guidance on the application of the ‘ordinary residence’ test for the purposes of section 24 of the CFA 2014 is set out in paragraph 106 of the Upper Tribunal’s judgment.
The Upper Tribunal further holds that when dealing with an appeal under section 51 of the CFA 2014, the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction as part of its case management powers under rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2699) to determine which local authority is responsible for a child or young person’s special educational needs, and must do so if there is a dispute, so as to ensure that the responsible local authority is the respondent to the proceedings at all material times.