W v Leeds City Council & Anor

Part 3 of a statement of special educational needs must provide for every educational need specified in Part 2. It need not provide for narrative, contextual or non-educational matters recorded there.

A specialist tribunal may consider social care, health and other evidence to obtain a complete picture of a child’s needs. Its decision must nevertheless remain within its statutory educational jurisdiction. Inter-agency co-operation is essential where needs overlap.

Tribunal reasons need not be elaborate. They must explain the material facts, basic conclusions and reasoning sufficiently to tell the parties why they won or lost and to disclose any question of law.

The mother of a severely autistic child appealed against McCombe J’s dismissal of her statutory appeal from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Tribunal had approved a statement providing constant adult supervision during school hours, but had rejected provision throughout the child’s waking day. It also removed a reference to sleeping difficulties after finding that those difficulties did not establish a special educational need.

The mother contended that the late amendment concerning sleep was procedurally unfair and that Part 3 of the statement was legally required to match every matter recorded in Part 2. She applied to adduce fresh medical evidence in the Court of Appeal. She also challenged the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons.

The central questions were whether every need or characteristic recorded in Part 2 required corresponding provision in Part 3, and whether procedural unfairness or another error of law justified interference with the Tribunal’s decision.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the child’s educational needs could be met during the school day and that constant supervision outside school hours was not established as special educational provision required by the Education Act 1996. McCombe J had correctly declined to interfere.

2. Part 3 of a statement must make provision for the educational needs specified in Part 2. The principle derived from R v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377 extends no further. Part 2 may contain narrative, background and contextual information which assists an informed assessment but does not itself constitute an educational need. Accordingly, the reference to constant supervision did not automatically require provision throughout the child’s waking day.

3. The late removal of the reference to sleeping difficulties fell within the Tribunal’s control over its procedure. Regulations 13(3) and 32(4) of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 provided flexibility to permit amendments or reliance on additional grounds. Regulation 49(1) confirmed that procedural non-compliance did not of itself make the proceedings void. The sleeping issue had been introduced by the mother and examined in detail. The amendment neither displaced the central issue nor prevented its proper analysis.

4. The application to adduce fresh medical evidence was refused. The evidence was contentious, was not tendered to the Tribunal or McCombe J, and would not significantly affect the question whether constant supervision outside school hours was required as educational provision.

5. Per Wall LJ, with whom Judge and Thomas LJJ agreed, a tribunal assessing a child with multiple needs may obtain evidence about social care, health and other provision so that it has a complete picture. It must then confine its decision to the special educational needs within its statutory jurisdiction. A holistic approach and effective inter-agency co-operation are essential, but they do not enlarge the Tribunal’s powers.

6. The Tribunal’s reasons, read as a whole, satisfied the standard in Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250. Reasons need not contain an elaborate analysis. They must state the essential facts, conclusions and reasoning sufficiently to explain the outcome and reveal whether a question of law arises.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother’s appeal was dismissed unanimously and her application to adduce fresh evidence was refused: [2005] EWCA Civ 988.

2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: McCombe J dismissed the mother’s appeal from the Tribunal on 9 November 2004. No citation is stated.

3. Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: On 11 June 2004 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal under section 326 of the Education Act 1996, subject to amendments to the statement of special educational needs.