W & Anor v Harrow Council & Anor

On a statutory appeal from a specialist educational tribunal, reasons are adequate where they address the substantial issues and enable the parties to understand why they won or lost. The tribunal need not answer every argument or explain the rejection of evidence on matters outside the issue it had to decide.

Where educational provision has been agreed in Part 3 of a statement of special educational needs, the tribunal’s task is to determine whether the school named in Part 4 can provide that provision. It need not consider additional preferences, interests or facilities which go beyond the agreed provision. A conclusion is not irrational merely because competing expert evidence was not accepted, provided the tribunal identified and answered the statutory question.

Mr and Mrs W appealed against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning the school named for their son, who had Down’s syndrome, delayed speech and language skills, and hearing loss.

The parties had substantially agreed the contents of Parts 2 and 3 of the statement of special educational needs. The remaining issue was whether Oak Lodge School, named by Harrow Council in Part 4, could provide the agreed educational provision, including speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and a sizeable peer group of pupils with moderate learning difficulties. The claimants preferred St Mary’s School and challenged the tribunal’s reasons and the rationality of its conclusion.

1. The statutory appeal was dismissed. The tribunal had concluded that Oak Lodge School could provide the provision identified in Part 3 and that attendance at the more expensive preferred school would therefore be an unreasonable use of public expenditure.
2. The tribunal’s reasons were adequate. Regulation 36(2) of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 required reasons in summary form. The tribunal had to deal with the substantial issues and make its conclusion intelligible, but it did not have to address every submission or provide a detailed dissection of the evidence.
3. The tribunal had correctly understood the therapy issue. Its statement that therapists would be on site meant that the therapies would be delivered at the school, with liaison with learning support assistants. It was entitled to prefer the council’s interpretation of the agreed Part 3 provision over the claimants’ contention that therapists had to be integrated members of the school staff.
4. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that Oak Lodge School could provide a sizeable peer group of pupils with moderate learning difficulties. Concerns about the pupils’ verbal communication abilities went beyond the provision which the parties had agreed and the question the tribunal had to decide. The tribunal therefore did not have to resolve those concerns or accept or reject the related evidence.
5. The tribunal was not required to consider the availability of Italian or sporting facilities sufficient to meet the child’s particular interests and abilities. Those matters were additional to the special educational provision identified in Part 3.
6. The decision was neither legally flawed nor irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The claimants were ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, summarily assessed at £5,503.75 inclusive of VAT.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: Following a hearing on 8 July 2004, the tribunal issued its decision on 29 July 2004, concluding that Oak Lodge School could provide the provision specified in Part 3 and dismissing the appeal concerning placement.

High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal was dismissed.