Johnstone, R (on the application of) v SENDIST & Anor

An expert tribunal deciding between educational placements is entitled to exercise its judgment on conflicting evidence, provided its decision shows why the rejected case failed and addresses the material differences between the available regimes. Reasons are assessed in the context of the subject matter, evidence and submissions, rather than by requiring findings on every disputed fact. In an appeal on a point of law, an arguable misunderstanding of evidence will not justify intervention unless it is established and material to the result. Where parental preference is in issue, the tribunal must balance the child’s educational needs against the suitability and resource implications of the proposed placement.

The claimant appealed under section 11 of the Tribunal Inquiries Act 1991 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 20 October 2004. The Tribunal had rejected the mother’s appeal concerning the educational placement of her four-year-old son, who had severe quadriplegic cerebral palsy.

The mother sought provision at Percy Hedley School, where the child had been placed privately and was making progress. The local education authority considered that his needs could be met at Parkside School at substantially lower cost. The appeal alleged that the Tribunal had misunderstood evidence about therapy provision at Percy Hedley and had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the case for the more intensive integrated regime. The central issues were whether those alleged errors were made and whether they were material, and whether the Tribunal’s reasons sufficiently explained its conclusion.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision that the child’s needs could be met at Parkside School disclosed no error of law.
2. The alleged misunderstanding of evidence concerning the frequency and duration of therapy was not made out. The evidence and documents were imprecise about quantification, but their substance was that Percy Hedley provided an intensive integrated programme, with therapists available to support the child’s programmes and provide therapy when required. The Tribunal had not departed materially from that evidence.
3. In any event, the alleged error was immaterial. The Tribunal’s decision turned on the fundamental differences between the two regimes, including the intensity and integration of therapy and the extent of direct therapist involvement. The central issue was the quality and suitability of provision, rather than the precise number of hours stated in the evidence.
4. The adequacy of reasons had to be assessed in the context of the subject matter, the evidence and the issues canvassed at the hearing. The appellant was entitled to understand why her case had been rejected, but the expert Tribunal was not required to give reasons for rejecting every particular fact. It was entitled to exercise its judgment on conflicting specialised evidence.
5. The Tribunal sufficiently explained why it considered that Parkside could meet the child’s needs. It identified the need for regular access to the three main therapies, specified the required sessions and considered how programmes would be implemented by school staff. It was also entitled to conclude that the evidence did not establish conductive education as vital to the child.
6. Cases involving parental preference required the Tribunal to undertake the balancing exercise between the child’s needs, the suitability of the proposed provision and the competing resource implications. That exercise was for the expert Tribunal, and it had been carried out without legal error. The respondent was awarded the costs of the appeal, subject to assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal under section 11 of the Tribunal Inquiries Act 1991, the Tribunal’s decision of 20 October 2004 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.