X & Anor v Caerphilly County Borough Council & Anor

In determining a child’s special educational needs, a tribunal must give adequate, reasoned consideration to conflicting professional evidence. It cannot reject a recommended intervention by asserting that there is no supporting evidence where several experts support it without explaining why their views are rejected. Speech and language therapy may constitute educational provision, non-educational provision, or both, depending on the child’s circumstances; ordinarily, communication difficulties should be treated as educational needs unless exceptional reasons justify otherwise. Where occupational therapy addresses skills already recognised as educational needs, it belongs in Part 3 of the statement. The statement must identify where and how the provision is to be delivered. Social needs do not become educational needs merely because meeting them may assist educational progress or affect family life.

The parents of Y appealed under section 11(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Tribunal had varied Part 2 of Y’s statement of special educational needs but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The dispute concerned whether Y required direct speech and language therapy, how his occupational therapy should be classified and provided, whether support from social services constituted educational provision, and whether the statement and the Tribunal’s reasons were sufficiently specific and adequate.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the parents’ appeal against Y’s statement was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal had erred in law in rejecting direct speech and language therapy. Its statement that there was no evidence supporting the therapy was untenable, because several professionals had expressed that view. The Tribunal had failed to give a reasoned justification for preferring the contrary professional opinion. It had also wrongly discounted one expert’s evidence because it had been given while Y was attending an unsuitable school.
3. The Tribunal further misunderstood the evidence concerning whether direct therapy was educational. The Code of Practice on Special Educational Needs, issued under section 313(2) of the Education Act 1996, stated that speech and language therapy may be educational, non-educational, or both, depending on the child’s health or developmental history. Communication provision should normally be treated as educational unless exceptional reasons existed.
4. The occupational therapy recommended by the preferred therapist addressed Y’s social interaction, independence and self-help skills. Those were identified in Part 2 as learning difficulties requiring educational provision. The therapy therefore belonged in Part 3, even though the therapist considered that it was not necessary for Y to make use of education. The Tribunal also had no evidential basis for finding that the therapy could be provided at the Centre. Part 3 had to specify where and how it would be delivered.
5. The challenge concerning social services failed. Social needs did not become educational needs merely because improving them might affect Y’s educational skills or family life. Collaboration between education and social services complemented, rather than converted, their separate functions.
6. The local education authority was permitted to revise the statement in light of the judgment. It was ordered to pay the parents’ costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: The Tribunal varied Part 2 of Y’s statement but otherwise dismissed the parents’ appeal on 13 April 2004.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal on points of law was allowed. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing.