B, R (on the application of) v Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal & Anor

A tribunal deciding the appropriate educational placement for a child with special educational needs may rationally prefer informed evidence from school staff and an educational psychologist over conflicting expert evidence. Standardised test results need not be treated as conclusive, particularly where anxiety may affect performance and the results contain anomalies.

On a rationality challenge, the reviewing court must assess the tribunal’s decision on its own terms and in light of the evidence before it. A previous judgment concerning an earlier tribunal decision provides useful guidance but cannot substitute for that assessment. The decision will stand where it is adequately reasoned and supported by evidence.

The claimant appealed under section 11 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1991 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that her dyslexic daughter’s special educational needs could appropriately be met at Vyners, a mainstream school, rather than at a specialist private boarding school.

An earlier Tribunal decision had been quashed by Collins J and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel. The second Tribunal reached the same result. The claimant argued that the Tribunal had irrationally failed to address extensive psychometric evidence and had acted with procedural unfairness because it had seen the earlier Tribunal’s decision without having the transcript of Collins J’s judgment. The central issues were whether the hearing was procedurally unfair and whether the Tribunal’s decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned.

1. Procedural fairness. The appeal was not vitiated by procedural unfairness. The claimant’s experienced solicitor had the transcript of Collins J’s judgment and could have asked the Tribunal to read it or requested removal of the earlier decision from the bundle. There was no indication that the Tribunal materially relied on the earlier decision, and its decision stood or fell on its own terms.
2. Rationality review. The earlier judgment was a helpful template for the proper approach to a rationality challenge, but the court had to examine the evidence before the second Tribunal and its decision independently. The court could not allow the earlier judgment to do that work for it.
3. Assessment of evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to treat the psychometric results with caution. The results contained significant discrepancies, and there was evidence that the child’s high anxiety caused her to underperform in standardised tests. The Tribunal was also entitled to consider evidence of progress at school, the substantial support provided, school reports, SATS results, anticipated GCSE performance, the child’s social and sporting engagement, and the risks associated with a further change of school.
4. Disposition. The Tribunal had confronted the conflict between the expert evidence and had given reasons supported by the evidence. Its conclusion that Vyners could make appropriate provision was neither irrational nor otherwise unlawful. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, with quantification adjourned generally with liberty to restore before a costs judge, and a detailed public funding assessment of the claimant’s costs was ordered.

1. Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: dismissed the claimant’s appeal concerning the placement named in her daughter’s statement of special educational needs.
2. High Court, Collins J: quashed the first Tribunal’s decision and remitted the appeal to a differently constituted panel.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the second Tribunal’s decision.