M M B v Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal & Anor

When reviewing a special educational needs tribunal decision, the court must examine whether the tribunal’s conclusions are supported by evidence capable of producing them. Evidence of a pupil’s positive attitude, sporting ability, social integration or relative performance against other pupils does not by itself establish that the pupil’s individual special educational needs are being met. The assessment must focus on the precise needs of the individual pupil and the provision made for those needs. Where the tribunal has applied irrelevant considerations or relied on inadequate evidence, its decision contains an error of law and should be quashed or set aside. The reviewing court should not itself select the appropriate educational placement where that decision falls within the tribunal’s specialist expertise; the matter should ordinarily be remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant challenged a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 27 October 2003. The Tribunal had upheld the local education authority’s decision that the child’s special educational needs could be met at her mainstream secondary school, rather than at the residential school sought by her mother.

The evidence included consistent reports from educational psychologists indicating substantial underachievement in literacy and numeracy, while evidence from the school emphasised the child’s motivation, sporting ability, confidence and participation in school life. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had lawfully evaluated that evidence and whether it had relied on the irrelevant fact that other, allegedly less able, pupils were succeeding in mainstream education.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s decision could not stand because its reasons for preferring the evidence of the school’s special educational needs coordinator to the consistent educational-psychology evidence were not supported by material capable of producing that conclusion. The reports relied upon mainly demonstrated the child’s positive attitude and commendations, rather than challenging the evidence of significant academic underachievement. A tribunal may reject expert evidence, but it must have valid reasons supported by proper evidence for doing so.
2. The Tribunal and the local education authority had also relied on the fact that other pupils, said to be less able than the child, were being educated successfully in mainstream settings. That was an irrelevant consideration. The question was whether the individual child’s special educational needs were properly met. The ability of other pupils, whose needs might be different or greater, could not establish that this child’s needs were met.
3. The court did not direct that the residential school was the appropriate placement. The Tribunal retained the expertise and duty to determine the correct placement on the evidence, preferably including up-to-date material. The matter was therefore remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing as soon as possible.
4. Costs were awarded to the appellant against the second respondent, the London Borough of Hillingdon, to be assessed in the usual way.

1. Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: On 27 October 2003, upheld the decision that the child’s special educational needs could be met at her mainstream school.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing.