R (on the application of) v Waltham Forest Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal

A specialist tribunal must give sufficient reasons for rejecting substantial evidence on a central issue. Reasons must enable the parties to understand why the decision was reached. Mere recitation of evidence is insufficient. A tribunal may use its specialist expertise, but where it relies on that expertise to decide an issue, it should give the parties an opportunity to comment and respond. Where expert evidence is rejected, the tribunal should identify that rejection and, where necessary, explain it. Failure to provide reasons and an opportunity to address expertise constitutes an error of law.

Mrs L appealed under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 16 April 2003. The Tribunal had dismissed her appeal against the contents of a statement of special educational needs for her son, G, who had autistic spectrum disorder and substantial developmental delay.

The central issue was whether G was making adequate progress at his maintained special school and whether his needs were being met there. The Tribunal relied on annual review reports and P scale scores, while the claimant and an educational psychologist gave evidence that G was making little or no progress and required a home-based LOVAAS programme.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal’s decision was quashed and the appeal was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
2. Reasons must address the substantial points raised so that the parties can understand the basis of the decision. This applied particularly to the evidence that G was not progressing at school and to the criticisms of the school-based provision.
3. A specialist tribunal may use its expertise. However, if it rejects expert evidence, it should say so specifically and, where necessary, explain why. Mere recitation of evidence does not amount to reasons.
4. Where a specialist tribunal relies on its own expertise to resolve an issue, it should give the parties an opportunity to comment on and challenge the reasoning based on that expertise.
5. The Tribunal appeared to reject the claimant’s and the educational psychologist’s evidence by relying on the P scale scores and annual review reports. It did not explain why that evidence was rejected, resolve the dispute concerning the teaching environment, or explain the significance and reliability of the P scale evidence.
6. That failure was material because progress at the school was the key question. The Tribunal’s failure both to explain its reasoning and, if it relied on expertise, to put the relevant point to the parties amounted to an error of law.

The appellant’s costs were to be assessed under the Community Legal Service Costs Regulations if not agreed.

High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s decision dated 16 April 2003. The decision was quashed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.