Education and public law barrister Matthew Wyard and Paul Wyard of Sinclairslaw review Nottinghamshire CC v SF and another, a case in which the Court of Appeal held that the First-Tier Tribunal had correctly construed the meaning of ‘necessary’ in section 37(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) in finding that it was necessary for special educational provision to be made for a child in accordance with an EHC Plan – even though the school had identified and made provisions for the child’s needs and the child was making progress at school.

This article was first published by LexisPSL on 9 March 2020.

View Publication

Matthew Wyard analyses Re: ACC &Ors [2020] EWCOP 9, a case concerning the conflicts of interests that may arise where property and affairs deputies instruct a firm with which they are associated to carry out instructions for P, or to conduct litigation on P’s behalf.

View Publication

Whistle-blowers beware: just because there is a PD doesn’t necessarily mean that the employer can’t respond (and damage your reputation) in order to ‘set the record straight’ - An analysis of Jesudason v Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 73

View Publication

Can a one-off decision amount to a PCP? Generally not, unless it can be shown that the decision, act or omission relied upon would be the same in a similar situation, says the Court of Appeal in Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112

View Publication