N's Parents v Somerset County Council

A tribunal determining an appeal concerning a statement of special educational needs must give summary reasons which address the substantial points, enable the aggrieved party to identify the basis of the decision, and do more than recite the evidence. It need not resolve every evidential detail or answer every subsidiary submission where its central reasoning is clear. In assessing progress, comparison with mainstream pupils may be inappropriate for a child with complex difficulties. A tribunal may lawfully conclude that a mainstream placement meets the child’s needs while directing strengthened provision.

The parents of an 11-year-old child with dyslexia and severe visual impairment appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against the dismissal by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal of their challenge to a statement of special educational needs. The Tribunal had named a mainstream middle school rather than an independent specialist school and had made minor amendments to the statement.

The parents alleged failures to make findings, irrationality, inadequate reasons, mistakes of fact and unfairness. A separate complaint concerning information-technology support was resolved by agreement. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s reasons were legally sufficient.

1. Appeal dismissed. The challenge to the Tribunal’s decision failed. The information-technology issue had been resolved by agreement. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

2. Under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, the appellants had to establish an error of law. The statutory requirement for reasons was a requirement for reasons in summary form. Applying the principles identified in R(L) v the London Borough of Waltham Forest and Another [2003] EWHC (Admin) 2907, the reasons had to deal with the substantial points raised, enable the aggrieved party to identify the basis of the decision, and do more than merely recite the evidence.

3. The Tribunal’s reasons met that standard. They explained why progress was being made, why comparison with mainstream pupils was inappropriate, why immediate Braille or another tactile code was not shown to be an educational need, and why the child’s needs could be met at the named school. The Tribunal was not required to resolve every detailed dispute about test scores, expert evidence, classroom noise or the precise benefits of specialist teaching.

4. The Tribunal was entitled to treat the child’s use of properly prepared print, the present priority of information-technology skills, and the need for specialist tuition and daily practice for Grade One Braille as relevant considerations. Its observations about the possible disadvantages of learning Braille were ancillary because its primary conclusion was that the case for immediate tactile-code teaching had not been made out.

5. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the child’s needs were being met at the mainstream placement was sufficiently reasoned. The decision was therefore not vitiated by a failure to address visual fatigue, the alleged widening attainment gap, the asserted advantages of a specialist setting, classroom noise, or evidence concerning unhappiness at school.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The court dismissed the statutory appeal against the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s decision of 18 November 2004, which had dismissed the parents’ appeal concerning the statement of special educational needs.