Education law case update: Autumn 2026

A. Higher Education

R (Glory Orarenren Otabor) v Student Loans Company [2026] EWHC 2168 (Admin)

Key issues: student finance, legitimate expectation

• On the facts, there was no material error in the information provided by the Home Office to the SLC and there was no unlawful decision making in the refusal of postgraduate funding: [40]-[47].
• Funding for undergraduate study did not create a legitimate expectation, as no expectation can arise where an action is ultra vires and the Court is slow to bind the public body with the consequences of a mistake: [52].

R (Bath Spa University and ors) v Secretary of State for Education [2026] EWHC 2129 (Admin)

Key issues: student finance, weekend only courses, legitimate expectation

• The time limit to challenge regulations as to the eligibility of a course for which attendance was required only on weekends ran from the date a provider first registered such a course on the SLC system: [90].

Maintenance loans and grants were available for a “distance learning course”. The statutory definition of such a course included a course where attendance is only required on the weekend: [96]-[123]. The non availability of funding for such courses was rational: [132]-[151].

• The fact funding had in the past been made available for these courses did not create a legitimate expectation, and any expectation would be ultra vires anyway: [124-131].

B. Special Educational Needs

R (DOL) v Southampton City Council [2026] EWHC 2255 (Admin)

Key issues: implementing special educational provision pending appeal, academic claims

• A LA must secure provision ordered by the FTT, even if the LA had made an undetermined application to appeal and suspend the FTT decision: [49]-[84].
• Claim was academic as the LA had secured the relevant provision shortly before the hearing (after the UT had refused the suspension application) but Court used discretion to determine the claim because of factors including wider public interest in the legal point: [46]-[48].

R (LVN) v London Borough of Southwark [2026] EWHC 2254 (Admin)

Key issues: securing education under section 19 EA 1996 and section 42 CFA 2014, academic claims

Court restated that the duty in section 19 of the EA 1996 is to provide education which is “reasonably practicable” – the question is not whether the LA could offer better education, rather whether what was offered was reasonably practicable: [74].

• An LA retains its duty to secure special educational provision in section 42 CFA 2014 where it has named a provider and that provider was obliged to provide services under section 43: [18]-[25].
• Claim was academic as Claimant was 16 and further EHC Plan was issued, but Court recorded decisions that would have been made given full argument was heard: [73].

AM and SP v Wokingham Borough Council [2026] UKUT 327 (AAC)

Key issues: section 61 provision, specifying location of provision in Section F

Section 61 of the CFA 2014 (education otherwise than in a school or institution) could apply where only part of the provision would be inappropriate to be made in a school or institution: [15]-[17]. Here, the FTT erred because it had on the one hand ordered a home based programme but found section 61 did not apply to any provision: [18]-[23].

The location of provision (here “home-based”) may be specified in section F if it is inherent or integral to its educational or training quality. However in practice this will rarely be the case. It is good practice for any FTT specifying location to provide brief reasons why in that case the location is inherent or integral to the educational or training quality of the provision: [24]-[27].

• It was an error to specify “special school” in Section I where there was no finding a mainstream school was incompatible with the parents’ wishes: [29]-[31].
• The FTT has jurisdiction as part of its case management powers to determine which LA is responsible for a child or young person under section 24 of the CFA 2014, and must do so if there is a dispute: [94]-[98]. Where the issue is whether an EHC Plan has transferred, the FTT must determine whether the EHC Plan has properly been transferred under regulation 15 of the SEND Regulations 2014: [99].
• A child is “in” a LA’s area for the purposes of section 24 of the CFA 2014 based on “ordinary residence”. The test to be applied is that set out 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; the approach in R (Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health [2015] UKSC 46 does not apply: [103]-[105].

London Borough of Enfield v Edwards [2026] UKUT 268

Key issues: disputes on LA responsibility

The approach, as it applies in the special educational needs context, is set out at [106].

C. Discrimination

M v Proprietor of an Academy [2026] UKUT 346 (AAC)

Key issues: striking out a claim

• The Tribunal erred in striking out the whole of a claim without specifically addressing a particular element of it, namely a failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to exams: [31]-[44].

BJV and CKW v Responsible Body of Nightingale Primary School [2026] UKUT 264 (AAC)

Key issues: standard of reasons

Tribunals are entitled to take a practical approach to reasons and concentrate on explaining the points that were decisive in their reasons. They may not spend as much time on, or may even left unsaid, matters not in dispute or which are self evident: [7]-[10].

Leon Glenister KC is a barrister at Landmark Chambers.