W, R (on the application of) v The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal & Anor

A tribunal comparing educational placements must identify the relevant cost issues clearly and assess the marginal or additional cost to public funds. Its reasons must show that it considered material evidence bearing on those issues, including evidence relevant to whether supervision or an escort is required. Summary reasons may be sufficient, but they must enable the parties and an appellate court to understand the issues addressed and how they were resolved. A decision reached without proper regard to material evidence, or supported by reasons that indicate such disregard, is liable to be quashed.

The claimant, the mother of J, challenged a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 5 October 2004 concerning J’s secondary education. The tribunal found that both Penn School, a day school, and St Mary’s School, a residential school, could meet J’s special educational needs. It selected Penn School on the basis that the additional cost of St Mary’s would amount to unreasonable public expenditure.

The decisive issue concerned the comparative transport costs, including whether J required an escort and whether an additional vehicle would be needed. The claimant argued that the tribunal’s reasons failed to address material evidence concerning J’s behaviour and the possible need for supervision.

1. The appeal was allowed. The tribunal’s decision was quashed and remitted to a fresh tribunal. The authority was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to assessment if not agreed.
2. The appropriate comparison between two educational placements is based on the marginal or additional cost incurred by the local education authority. If transport is already operating between the relevant area and a school, and carrying an additional child creates no extra cost, the relevant cost may be zero. A proportion of the total transport cost is not necessarily the proper figure.
3. The tribunal’s decision did not adequately identify the cost issues or explain how they had been resolved. The relevant questions included the cost of transport without an escort, the cost of an escort, and whether an additional vehicle would be required.
4. The tribunal stated that the need for adult supervision because J might be violent was based on supposition. That reasoning was difficult to reconcile with evidence that J sometimes hit himself when frustrated and that staff had reported violent reactions in certain circumstances. The tribunal should have addressed that evidence and formed a view about its significance, rather than appearing to disregard it.
5. Although tribunals may give summary reasons, the reasons must enable the appellate court to see sufficiently what issues were considered and how they were determined. The reasons here suggested that material evidence had not been kept in mind when the claimant’s case was rejected. The decision was therefore set aside.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: On 5 October 2004, found that both proposed schools could meet J’s special educational needs but selected Penn School because the additional cost of St Mary’s amounted to unreasonable public expenditure.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal, quashed the tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to a fresh tribunal.