No Statutory Right to Legal Representation at IDP Review Meetings under the ALN Act 2018

1. Introduction

AY, a child with additional learning needs (“ALN”), challenged the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council (“the Council”) after it refused to allow his mother’s solicitor to attend an annual review meeting of his Individual Development Plan (“IDP”). The IDP, established under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (“the Act”), specifies the special educational provision a local authority must secure. AY’s mother contended that the refusal breached her statutory right to be accompanied by an advocate of her choosing under sections 6, 14(10), 23, 68 and 69 of the Act and corresponding Welsh Government Code of Practice (“the Code”). The Court of Appeal had to decide (1) whether any such right exists under the Act or Code and (2) if not, whether the Council’s refusal was Wednesbury unreasonable.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Lewison, Phillips and Newey LJJ) resolved only the first issue, holding that:

Sections 6 and 23 of the Act impose mandatory considerations on a local authority when deciding how to conduct an IDP review, including enabling parents to participate fully, but do not confer a substantive right to be accompanied by a solicitor at such meetings.
The review process under section 23 is distinct from the dispute‐resolution arrangements under section 68 and does not engage the advocacy‐service mandate of section 69.
The Code’s references to independent advocacy and “other informal advocates” (paragraph 32.58) indicate what may be useful, not a binding entitlement to bring a privately-funded lawyer.
Accordingly, there is no statutory or code-based right to legal representation at an IDP review meeting. Ground 1 fails. Ground 2 (Wednesbury unreasonableness) was fact-specific and academic; the court declined to consider it.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

R (L) v Devon County Council [2021] EWCA Civ 358
Confirmed that courts may decide purely statutory interpretation issues even if proceedings have become academic, given wider significance to future cases.
R (Brooks) v Islington LBC [2015] EWHC 2657 (Admin)
High Court exercised discretion to decide a general statutory interpretation point but refused to address a fact-specific, academic challenge.
R (Kumar) v Hillingdon LBC [2020] EWHC 3326 (Admin)
Under the Children and Families Act 2014 and associated regulations, a person entitled to mediation could bring any advocate, including a solicitor. Distinguished on its different statutory text and regulatory framework.
Wednesbury principles
Governs irrationality review: a public‐law decision is only unlawful if it falls outside the range of responses a reasonable decision-maker could adopt.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in four steps:

Statutory Scheme: Sections 23(1) and 14(10) impose duties to review and secure specified ALP, but do not enumerate attendees at review meetings.
Mandatory Considerations: Section 6 requires a local authority “to have regard” to enabling participation by children and parents. The phrase “must have regard” creates a mandatory checklist of factors to inform how the review is carried out, not a positive right to legal representation.
Separate Dispute-Resolution Regime: Sections 68–69 establish local arrangements for disagreement resolution and independent advocacy services provided or funded by the authority. These obligations are distinct from, and do not subsume, the section 23 review process.
Code of Practice: The 2021 Code offers non-binding guidance (e.g., paragraphs 22.10, 25.31, 32.58) on facilitating participation and signposting advocacy. It does not mandate that parents may bring a privately-funded solicitor.

3.3 Impact

This decision clarifies that:

Local authorities retain discretion in structuring IDP review meetings, subject to the mandatory consideration duty of section 6 and Code guidance.
Parents may rely on independent advocacy services arranged under section 69, but have no statutory entitlement to bring a solicitor at public expense (or private expense) unless the authority permits it.
Future disputes over meeting conduct will be reviewed for irrationality, not for breach of a right to legal representation.
Practitioners should advise parents to request inclusion of an advocate early; authorities must document reasons if they decline any particular advocate.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Individual Development Plan (IDP): A statutory document identifying a child’s additional learning needs and the extra or different educational support they must receive.
Additional Learning Needs (ALN): Learning difficulties or disabilities that require extra or specialized educational provision beyond mainstream resources.
“Must Have Regard” Duty: A requirement to consider specified factors; failure to regard them can lead to judicial review, but the duty does not itself create new substantive rights.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A public-law concept meaning a decision so irrational that no reasonable authority could have reached it.
Litigation Friend: A person (usually a parent) who conducts court proceedings on behalf of a child who cannot sue in their own name.

5. Conclusion

AY v Vale of Glamorgan [2025] EWCA Civ 671 establishes that neither the ALN Act 2018 nor its accompanying Code confers a standalone right for parents to be accompanied by a solicitor at annual IDP review meetings. Local authorities must design review processes to facilitate participation under section 6 and follow Code guidance, but they may lawfully refuse private legal representation so long as their decision is not irrational. This ruling preserves authorities’ discretion in meeting design while underscoring the availability of advocacy services under section 69 and the potential for judicial review if decision-making factors are ignored or applied unreasonably.