Lawrence, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark & Anor

A tribunal determining special educational needs may specify provision that is not yet available at the proposed school. Future provision based on an authority’s assurance is not unlawful merely because it is prospective. The tribunal must assess whether the evidence justifies prudent and safe reliance on that assurance. The decision is irrational only if there is no acceptable evidence that the provision will be available, or if no rational tribunal properly applying the law could have reached the conclusion. An appeal to the Administrative Court is confined to errors of law and does not permit reconsideration of educational suitability or factual assessments.

This was a statutory appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 11 January 2005. The Tribunal had directed that Niyazi Lawrence’s statement of special educational needs should provide for occupational therapy and had named Bacon’s College as his school. At the hearing, the occupational therapy was not yet available there, although the local education authority gave assurances that it would be arranged. The central issue was whether the Tribunal could lawfully rely on that prospective provision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was not shown to contain an error of law.
2. The Administrative Court’s jurisdiction on a statutory appeal was limited. Questions of fact, the suitability of a school and the educational requirements of a child were generally matters for the Tribunal. The court could intervene for an error of law, a finding unsupported by evidence, or a conclusion that no rational tribunal properly applying the law could reach.
3. The absence of occupational therapy facilities at the proposed school on the date of the Tribunal hearing did not, of itself, prevent the Tribunal from naming that school and specifying the provision. SENDIST decisions necessarily look forward, and provision may need to be arranged before a pupil joins or becomes fully integrated into a school.
4. The decisive question was whether the Tribunal could rationally rely on the local education authority’s assurance that the provision would be made available. If there were no acceptable evidence supporting availability, reliance on the assurance would be irrational. On the evidence, including the Tribunal’s careful treatment of the issue, that threshold was not met.
5. Later events, including difficulties experienced after the Tribunal’s decision, could not be taken into account in the appeal. If the authority failed to comply with the statement, the claimant’s remedy would be judicial review against the authority.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: decision dated 11 January 2005 directing occupational therapy provision and naming Bacon’s College.
• High Court (Administrative Court): statutory appeal dismissed.