London Borough of Enfield v Edwards & Anor (SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS) [2026] UKUT 268 (AAC) (14 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal dismissed London Borough of Enfield’s appeal. It held that for section 24 of the Children and Families Act 2014, a child or young person’s "ordinary residence" is determined by the Shah/Worcestershire approach, not the social care ordinary-residence approach from Cornwall, and that the First-tier Tribunal can decide which local authority is responsible as a case-management matter under rule 9 when that issue is disputed.

Key points

• Parties: London Borough of Enfield appealed against Teegan Edwards and London Borough of Haringey in a special educational needs/EHC plan dispute.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; the Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that Enfield was the appropriate respondent at the relevant time.
• Reasoning: ordinary residence for CFA 2014 section 24 follows R v Barnet LBC, ex p Shah as explained in R (Worcestershire) v SSHSC, not the social care test from R (Cornwall) v Secretary of State for Health.
• Reasoning: a placement in local-authority-arranged accommodation can change ordinary residence for CFA 2014 purposes even if social care responsibility stays with the placing authority.
• Jurisdiction: the First-tier Tribunal has power under rule 9 to determine which local authority is responsible and must do so if there is a dispute, so the correct authority is the respondent throughout.
• No sanctions/export-control issue appears in the judgment; the case is confined to UK education and local-authority responsibility.

Why it matters

The decision clarifies a responsibility-allocation rule that can shift legal and financial exposure between local authorities when a young person moves into arranged accommodation. For risk analysts, it shows how statutory residence tests can diverge across legal regimes, a useful analogue for jurisdictional allocation disputes, but it does not itself concern sanctions or national security.

Implications

Local authorities handling EHC plan appeals must treat responsibility as a threshold issue and be prepared for the First-tier Tribunal to resolve it case by case. Compliance and litigation strategy should distinguish educational responsibility from social care responsibility, because the same factual placement may produce different ordinary-residence outcomes under different statutes.