Anonymous Summary of [1998] UKHL 20

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent local education authority (“Defendant”) had a statutory duty under section 298 of the Education Act 1993 to arrange “suitable” education for children who, because of illness, could not attend school. The Appellant, a minor suffering from a chronic medical condition, had received five hours per week of home tuition from 1992 onward. In 1996, after the Defendant’s education committee reduced its home-tuition budget from £100,000 to £25,000, the standard allocation for existing pupils was cut from five to three hours per week. The reduction was expressly driven by budgetary constraints.

The Appellant’s parents sought judicial review of the decision. A single judge of the High Court quashed the reduction. The Court of Appeal (majority) reversed that decision, holding that the Defendant could lawfully consider financial resources. The Appellant appealed to the House of Lords, which heard the matter in January 1998 and delivered judgment in May 1998.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, when determining what constitutes “suitable” education under section 298 of the Education Act 1993, a local education authority may take its own financial resources into account.
2. Consequentially, whether the Defendant’s policy reducing the Appellant’s home tuition from five to three hours per week was unlawful.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The duty imposed by section 298 is owed to each individual child; suitability must be judged solely by educational criteria specified in subsection (7).
• Financial resources are not an enumerated factor and are therefore an irrelevant consideration; reliance on them renders the decision ultra vires.
• The Defendant’s policy was adopted for an improper purpose—saving money—and was irrational.

Defendant's Arguments

• Although suitability is a matter of judgment, the statute leaves discretion to the authority, and resource constraints are a legitimate factor in forming that judgment.
• The policy was applied flexibly; the Appellant’s case received individual consideration before confirming three hours as “suitable.”
• Even if resources are not expressly mentioned, the court should recognise practical limits imposed by central government funding controls.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House began with the text of section 298. Subsection (7) defines “suitable” education exclusively by reference to educational factors—efficiency, and appropriateness to the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and special needs. No reference to resources appears, and other sections of the Act demonstrate that Parliament expressly mentions resources when it intends them to be relevant. Therefore, resource considerations are not a permissible factor in deciding suitability.

Accepting that the Defendant adopted and applied a budget-driven policy, the Court held that this introduced an irrelevant consideration into the statutory decision-making process. While an authority may choose between different methods of delivering suitable education with regard to cost, it cannot lower the substantive standard of suitability itself because of budgetary pressures.

The decision in Barry did not compel a different outcome; that statute required assessment of “needs” and “necessity,” concepts the majority in Barry found inherently resource-sensitive. Section 298 imposes a concrete duty without such qualifiers.

The Lords rejected the broader policy argument that court enforcement of such duties is impractical under present funding regimes, stressing that Parliament, not the courts or local authorities, must alter statutory obligations if financial realities make them onerous.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; the High Court’s order quashing the reduction in tuition hours was restored.

Immediate Effect: The Defendant must reinstate educational provision in line with the original five-hour arrangement for the Appellant and reconsider similar cases without relying on budgetary caps.

Broader Implications: The judgment confirms that local education authorities cannot dilute statutory duties toward individual pupils on grounds of financial scarcity. While authorities retain discretion over how to provide suitable education, the substantive standard set by Parliament is non-negotiable unless amended by legislation.