D, R (on the application of) v Special Educational Needs Tribunal

A tribunal determining special educational needs must give essential reasons on the substantial issues raised, even where legislation requires reasons only in summary form. Where expert evidence is central, the tribunal must explain why it accepts or rejects the competing opinions. Recording an expert’s view without explaining departure from it is inadequate. A material failure to address such evidence vitiates the reasoning and requires the decision to be set aside. The reviewing court should not substitute its own educational assessment for that of the tribunal; the usual remedy is remission to a fresh tribunal.

The claimant appealed against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning the educational placement of her son, H, who had exceptionally severe dyslexia. The tribunal accepted that a specialist school could meet his needs but concluded that a resource base attached to a mainstream school was appropriate.

The claimant alleged that the tribunal had made material factual errors and had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting evidence from an educational psychologist and a specialist head teacher. The central issues were the tribunal’s duty to give reasons and the appropriate remedy if its reasoning was legally flawed.

1. The appeal was allowed. The tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal for reconsideration, with the rehearing to be expedited.
2. Under the statutory scheme governing statements of special educational needs and appeals concerning their contents, reasons may be given in summary form. That does not remove the duty to give essential reasons dealing with the substantial issues raised, so that the parties can understand why the decision was reached.
3. The court followed the approach adopted by S (A Minor) v Special Educational Needs Tribunal. Where expert evidence is material, the parties are entitled to know whether it has been rejected and, if so, why. It is insufficient merely to record the expert’s position and give no explanation for departing from it.
4. The tribunal had failed to explain why it preferred the evidence supporting the mainstream resource base to the evidence of the claimant’s two expert witnesses. That failure vitiated the reasoning process and meant that the conclusion could not stand.
5. The tribunal had also materially misapprehended the evidence by finding that H had made no real improvement at his specialist school. This further undermined the validity of its decision.
6. The court’s function was limited to determining whether the tribunal had erred in law. It was not appropriate to substitute the court’s own assessment of the suitable educational placement. Remission to a fresh tribunal was therefore the proper remedy. The court made no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of the claimant’s costs.

The claimant appealed to the Administrative Court from the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 17 September 2002, with reasons given on 26 September 2002. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal.