It absolutely amazes me that common sense didn't prevail in this case and that the LA were so hell-bent on not submitting to parental choice that they tried to play around with the costs. Poor parents to have to go through all of this. Good on the likes of David Wolfe QC to represent the parents on a no win/no fee basis
It is very good news that the Court of Appeal found this.
Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, held that the term "public expenditure" in section 9 Education Act 1996 bears its natural meaning, i.e. any expenditure incurred by a public body, and it could not be restricted to expenditure in the provision of education
Because this doesn't just mean the social care costs in this particular case, but hopefully means other expenses.
My LA tried to argue during Tribunal that the £15k per annum that it would cost to taxi my DS to the school they wanted was not an educational cost so shouldn't be counted (even though there's strong case law that transport has to be included) My LA would much rather give £15,000 to a taxi firm than to use the same money for an education my DS could access
Hopefully this will become case law so LAs can no longer mess around with tax payers money to deny children provision.
I suppose Warrington fought this to try to establish the legal principle for the purposes of other cases rather than because they were so desperate to carry on spending more than they needed to for this child. However, it does sound as if the arguments they put forward were nonsensical. If they think it's as difficult as they claimed to get information out of other departments and the NHS, I wonder how they think they're going to cope with EHC plans?