Holding Local Authorities Accountable: The JSC v Cambridgeshire Decision and Using Judicial Review for SEN Delays
The High Court reinforces that the timescales for completing EHC Needs Assessment are hard edged and judicial review can be successfully used to challenge delay.
As a solicitor specialising in special educational needs (SEN) law, I often work with parents and carers navigating the complex system of Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessments and plans. The recent High Court decision in The King (on the application of JSC) v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 68 (Admin), handed down on 19 January 2026, is a significant win for families facing delays in this process. In this article, I’ll explain the key points of the judgment and how judicial review (JR) can be a powerful tool to challenge breaches of statutory timescales. This is not legal advice tailored to your situation—always consult a specialist solicitor—but it highlights options available to you if your local authority is falling short.
Understanding the Legal Framework for EHC Assessments
Before diving into the case, a quick recap of the law is helpful. Under the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Regulations 2014, local authorities have strict duties when a request is made for an EHC needs assessment. This assessment evaluates a child or young person’s educational, health, and social care needs, potentially leading to an EHC plan that outlines the support they require.
Key timescales include:
- Deciding whether to conduct an assessment: Within 6 weeks of the request.
- Completing the assessment and deciding whether to issue an EHC plan: Within 16 weeks of the request.
- Finalising and issuing the EHC Plan (if approved): Within 20 weeks of the request.
These are not “best efforts” guidelines—they are “hard-edged legal duties,” as emphasised in related cases like R (W) v Hertfordshire County Council [2023] EWHC 3138 (Admin). The SEND Code of Practice 2015 reinforces that delays must be minimised, as timely support is crucial for children’s development, reducing anxiety, and preventing long-term harm.
Unfortunately, many local authorities struggle with high demand, workforce shortages, and resource issues, leading to widespread breaches. None of these “excuses” permit a deviation from statutory timescales. This is where JR comes in: it’s a court process to review the lawfulness of public bodies’ decisions or failures to act.
The Facts of JSC v Cambridgeshire
The claimant, JSC, was an 11-year-old girl with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and severe anxiety. Her primary school requested an EHC needs assessment from Cambridgeshire County Council on 2 April 2025. The council agreed to proceed on 29 May 2025, but then failed to meet the deadlines: no decision on issuing an EHC plan by 23 July 2025 (16 weeks), and no final plan by 20 August 2025 (20 weeks).
The delays stemmed from a backlog in securing educational psychologist input—a common issue cited by the council as a “national difficulty.” JSC started secondary school in September 2025 without support, leading to panic attacks, absences, and emotional distress. Her carer (litigation friend) complained, but no progress was made until solicitors sent a pre-action letter on 16 September 2025. Even then, the council didn’t respond, prompting a JR application on 1 October 2025.
Remarkably, the council suddenly assessed JSC on 13 October 2025 and decided not to issue an EHC plan on 21 October—nearly 13 weeks late. JSC appealed this decision to the First-Tier Tribunal (the usual route for content disputes), but pursued JR for a declaration that the council had acted unlawfully by breaching the timescales.
The High Court’s Decision
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, Duncan Atkinson KC granted permission for JR and issued the declaration: “The Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to complete the Claimant’s EHC Needs Assessment and decide whether to issue an EHC Plan within 16 weeks of the request, contrary to Regulation 10 of the SEND Regulations 2014.”
Key reasons included:
Unlawful Conduct and Prejudice: The council admitted the delay but argued the claim was “academic” since a decision was eventually made. The judge disagreed, noting the breach caused real harm to JSC, including intensified anxiety and lost educational opportunities. Declarations mark illegality and prevent misleading impressions of justice.
Public Interest: Drawing on cases like R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450 and R (Zoolife International Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2007] EWHC 2995 (Admin), the judge found a “good reason in the public interest” to declare the breach. Evidence showed systemic issues in Cambridgeshire: As of November 2025, 2,010 children awaited assessments, with 1,733 exceeding 16 weeks and 1,849 exceeding 20 weeks. The council’s own correspondence admitted “many more requests” than they could handle, with backlogs of up to 9 months.
No Alternative Remedies Suffice: While JSC could appeal the no-plan decision or reapply after 6 months, this didn’t address the past unlawfulness or deter future breaches.
Council’s Failures in Proceedings: The council breached court orders on evidence and skeletons, but was granted relief from sanctions as it didn’t prejudice JSC.
The judge awarded costs to JSC, underscoring that councils can’t escape accountability for systemic delays.
Implications for Parents and Carers
This decision is empowering. It confirms that even if a council eventually acts (often spurred by JR threats), you can still seek a declaration to vindicate your child’s rights and highlight broader issues. Declarations aren’t just symbolic—they deter future breaches, provide context for reapplications, and can support claims for compensation if harm is proven.
In Cambridgeshire, the judgment exposes chronic under-resourcing, with statistics showing breaches in over 85% of cases. Yet, it fails to take decisive action. This mirrors national trends: Department for Education data shows many councils missing deadlines, affecting thousands of children. JSC builds on cases like W v Hertfordshire, where declarations were granted for similar systemic failures.
How Judicial Review Can Help Challenge Breaches
If your local authority is delaying an EHC assessment or issuing an EHC Plan beyond the statutory timescales, JR might be appropriate. Here’s a step-by-step guide based on my experience:
Gather Evidence: Document all communications, deadlines missed, and harm to your child (e.g. anxiety, absences, or stalled progress). Keep records of complaints to the council.
Pre-Action Protocol: Send a “letter before action” (LBA) to the council’s legal department, outlining the breach and demanding compliance within a reasonable time (e.g. 14-21 days). This often prompts action without court— in JSC, it didn’t, but the threat accelerated the process.
File for JR: If no response, apply to the High Court within 3 months of the breach (promptly is key). Seek “permission” first; if granted, a full hearing follows. You can request anonymity for your child, as in JSC.
Relief Sought: Ask for a mandatory order (to force action) if delays continue, or a declaration if they’ve acted late. Costs are often recoverable if you win.
When to Use JR: It’s for clear legal breaches, not disputes over plan content (use tribunal appeals for that). Ideal for systemic delays causing prejudice. Public funding (legal aid) may be available if you meet financial criteria.
Risks and Costs: JR is fast but intense—hearings can be within months. If unsuccessful, you might pay some costs, but courts are cautious with vulnerable claimants.
In the past 6 months we’ve seen JR force quicker resolutions and highlight accountability gaps. JR is an effective tool and contrary what is often said about it, it does not necessarily need to be used as “last resort”.
Final Thoughts
The JSC decision sends a clear message: Local authorities can’t hide behind “national difficulties” to breach hard deadlines that protect vulnerable children. As parents and carers, you have rights—don’t hesitate to enforce them. If you’re facing delays, contact a SEN solicitor early; time is critical for your child’s future.
“Such systemic illegality, in contrast to a one off breach, is not something that should go unmarked”.
JSC v Cambridgeshire