R (on the application of (1) Yonas Admasu Kebede (2) Abiy Admasu Kebede) v Newcastle City Council

25 Feb 2013

Shazia Akhtar acted for two brothers, Ethiopian nationals, who were abandoned in the UK as children and who were consequently looked after by the defendant local authority, Newcastle City Council  (“NCC”). Both had discretionary leave to remain in the UK and both applied for, and gained places at university, due to commence in September 2012.

The Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2011/87, meant  that those with discretionary leave to remain were no longer entitled to "home student" status. The practical effect of this change meant that the brothers could not access student loans, without which they could not pay their tuition fees and attend university.

Shazia argued that s23C (4) (b) and s24B (2) (b) of the Children Act meant that NCC had a duty to assist the applicants with the payment of their tuition fees which, on a simple statutory construction, were "expenses connected with education".

NCC denied that "expenses connected with education" included tuition fees and therefore they were not statutorily obliged to provide such assistance. NCC further argued that it was a matter for its discretion and that the issue of resources was a relevant factor. NCC relied upon the House of Lords decision in R v Gloucestershire CC ex P Barry [1997] AC 584 to support this contention.

The court rejected this argument and held that the argument of limited resources should not be applied where there was a statutory duty (as opposed to a power) to assist, applying the principle of R v East Sussex CC ex p Tandy [1998] AC 714.

The court accepted Shazia’s argument that s23C (4) (b) and the related provision s24B (2) does in fact cover tuition fees and the local authority now has to reconsider its decision in light of the court’s findings.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: