England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

LW v OFSTED [2004] EWCST 270(EYSUS_Costs) (22 June 2004)

LW v OFSTED (Costs) [2004] 270.EY SUS Decided on 16 June 2004 Mr Anthony Wadling (Chairman) Ms Wendy Stafford Mr Peter George

DECISION

1. The history of this appeal is set out in the decision of the President, HHJ Pearl dated 14 April 2004. We agree with and adopt the reasoning of the President's decision that in consequence of the withdrawal of the suspension by OFSTED, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal.
2. Mrs LW has applied to us for a costs order under paragraph 24 of the Regulations. In order to reach our decision on this application, we have read the submissions of Mrs LW dated 18 May 2004 and the response of OFSTED dated 1 June 2004. We have also taken into consideration the written material supplied by both parties for the purposes of the appeal.
3. When reaching our conclusions we have had regard to what was said in Fun Camps Ltd v OFSTED [2003] 124.EY. In particular, we agree that the burden of proof rests with the party making the application, the standard of proof to be satisfied is a high one and that conduct as a whole must be looked at including matters prior to the commencement of the proceedings. However, there must be something found to be unreasonable in the bringing or conduct of the proceedings themselves before an order can be made.
4. Our review of the history of this matter shows that on 23 January, OFSTED was notified of a serious matter relating to a child being minded by Mrs LW. Following a meeting between the relevant bodies on 28 January, an investigation under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 was initiated. Mrs LW was suspended by OFSTED the following day. On 4 February, Mrs LW lodged an appeal against this decision to which OFSTED responded on 12 February giving some further information concerning the investigation. Also on 12 February, a hearing date of 26 February was set down. On 17 February, OFSTED notified Mrs LW that their investigation was complete and her suspension notice was withdrawn.
5. Given the serious nature of the allegation, that OFSTED's inquiries were complete within 17 working days of being notified of the matter and that some information was made available to the Appellant, we are not satisfied to the necessary standard that OFSTED acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings.

Accordingly, it is our unanimous decision that the appeal be dismissed and the application refused, and there will be no Order as to costs.

Signed by the chairman this 22^nd day of June 2004