R (JSC) v Cambridgeshire County Council: High Court grants declaration for systemic SEND failures

The High Court has granted declaratory relief against Cambridgeshire County Council for unlawfully failing to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timescales, despite the council eventually reaching a decision not to issue an EHC plan.

JSC, an 11-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and extreme anxiety, required an EHC needs assessment. Her primary school requested this on 2 April 2025, and the council agreed to proceed on 29 May 2025. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, the council had 16 weeks to decide whether to issue an EHC plan (by 23 July 2025) and 20 weeks to finalise any plan (by 20 August 2025).

The council missed both deadlines significantly. Despite the claimant's family providing all requested information promptly, the process stalled owing to the council's inability to secure an educational psychologist's report. By September 2025, with JSC having started secondary school without support, the council could provide no timescale for completion, citing workforce shortages as a "national difficulty".

Only after judicial review proceedings were initiated did the council arrange an assessment, completed on 13 October 2025. The council decided against issuing an EHC plan on 21 October 2025—12 weeks and 6 days beyond the statutory deadline.

Duncan Atkinson KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, emphasised that the SEND Regulations impose "hard edged legal duties", not merely best endeavours obligations. The council had acted unlawfully in breaching these mandatory timescales.

The council argued that declaratory relief was inappropriate given the claim had become academic following its decision. However, the court rejected this submission, finding multiple grounds for granting the declaration.

The unlawful delay had caused JSC significant prejudice, including intensified anxiety, panic attacks, difficulty transitioning between classes, social isolation and absences from school. The declaration would provide important context should JSC make any future application for assessment, which she could do six months after the October decision.

Critically, the court found compelling public interest justification for declaratory relief. Evidence before the court demonstrated systemic failures by the council. In response to a Freedom of Information request, the council disclosed that as at November 2025, 1,733 EHC needs assessments had exceeded the 16-week deadline and 1,849 had exceeded the 20-week deadline. The council had received 274 complaints about delays in 2025 alone.

The court examined correspondence in 20 other cases where the council had exceeded statutory deadlines by between 6 and 52 weeks. The council's own evidence confirmed it was receiving far more requests than its educational psychology workforce could manage, with assessments running approximately nine months behind schedule.

Duncan Atkinson KC held that such systemic illegality affecting vulnerable young people should not go unmarked. The declaration would both identify past unlawful conduct and deter similar failures in future, whilst vindicating the claimant's rights.

The council was ordered to pay the claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. The judgement reinforces that resource constraints cannot excuse failures to meet mandatory statutory timescales designed to ensure timely support for children with special educational needs.

Copyright & permissions