Aladay, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Richmond & Anor

In deciding whether to name a school in a statement of special educational needs, the tribunal must determine whether the proposed school is appropriate, not merely adequate. It may balance the educational advantages of the parents’ preferred placement against the additional expenditure for the local education authority, provided the alternative school can meet the child’s needs. Parental preference is subject to efficient instruction and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. A tribunal need not address every item of evidence expressly where its reasons show that the material issues were considered. A new legal argument will rarely be entertained on statutory appeal where it was not advanced before the tribunal, particularly where further evidence would be required.

The claimant appealed under section 11 of the Tribunal & Enquiries Act 1992 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning his son’s statement of special educational needs. The Tribunal had amended Part 4 of the statement to name Christ’s School, a maintained mainstream school, rather than St James’ School, an independent school which the child had attended and which his parents preferred.

The Tribunal considered the child’s visual impairment, educational and safety needs, transitional arrangements, travel, curriculum and the substantially lower cost of the maintained placement. The claimant argued that the Tribunal had failed to apply the correct test, had overlooked relevant evidence and costs, and should have specified a type of school broad enough to include the independent school. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal had expressly concluded that Christ’s School was an appropriate school to meet the child’s special educational needs. Its reference to being unable to find that the school could not meet those needs did not show that it had applied a test of mere adequacy. The statutory requirement was therefore properly understood and applied.
2. The Tribunal had considered the material matters, including the possible future sixth-form position, safety concerns, travel, the child’s vulnerability and the differences between the schools. It was not required to refer to every item of evidence. Its conclusion that the greater safety and independence challenges at Christ’s did not make that placement inappropriate was not irrational.
3. Cost was a relevant consideration under section 9 of the Education Act 1996. The Tribunal was entitled to balance the advantages of the parental choice against the additional cost of the independent school, applying the approach described in Oxfordshire County Council v GB and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1358. The costs relied on by the claimant either were not established as material additional costs, were not consequences of the decision, or were not required educational provision.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to take account of the comparative curriculum. Its observations about the absence of design and technology at St James’ were part of the overall assessment and were not treated as determinative.
5. The argument that the statement should specify a type of school including independent schools had not been raised before the Tribunal and was inconsistent with the case advanced below. It was not an exceptional point suitable for consideration for the first time on appeal, and could not properly be determined without further evidence. The statutory scheme and Richardson v Solihull District Council [1998] EWCA Civ 226 supported the usual desirability of naming a particular school.
6. Permission to amend the grounds and an extension of time were granted. The claim failed, and costs were ordered on the usual legal aid basis.

The judgment concerned a statutory appeal to the Administrative Court from the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed.