Wiltshire County Council, R (on the application of) v The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal

On an appeal on points of law, a tribunal may require residential special-school provision where ordinary day-school provision is appropriate but insufficient to meet the child’s special educational needs. The statutory duty is to provide appropriate education, not the best possible education, but cost cannot justify provision which is inappropriate. A residential placement need not specify educational provision by precise hours where professional staff continuously care for the child and can deliver the necessary provision with reasonable flexibility. A tribunal need not adjourn merely because further evidence would have been helpful, unless the available material is insufficient or its conclusion is novel and unforeseeable. Family circumstances may be considered where they demonstrate that parents cannot deliver educational provision directly related to the child’s learning difficulties.

Wiltshire County Council appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning an eight-year-old child with autism and significant learning difficulties.

The tribunal had directed that the child attend Radlett Lodge School as a weekly boarder, rather than continue as a day pupil at Fosse Way School. The authority argued that the residential placement was unnecessarily expensive, that the tribunal should have adjourned for further evidence, that the statement lacked sufficient detail, and that the tribunal had considered the needs of the family rather than the child’s educational needs.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal had not erred in law by directing attendance at Radlett Lodge School. Its findings showed that Fosse Way School was not inappropriate, but that the provision available there was insufficient because it did not meet the child’s need for substantial educational provision outside normal school hours. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that residential education was required.
2. The expression “24-hour curriculum” was unhelpful. No child literally requires a 24-hour curriculum. The material finding was that residential special-school attendance was necessary to meet the child’s special educational needs.
3. The difference in cost did not establish an error of law. Section 324 of the Education Act 1996 did not permit inappropriate provision to be made merely because it was cheaper. The tribunal had considered the financial consequences and had concluded that the residential placement was a reasonable use of public funds. On an appeal limited to points of law under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, the court could not quash the decision on grounds of undue extravagance.
4. The tribunal was not required to adjourn. It had sufficient evidence to determine the issues, neither party had sought an adjournment, and the case was not an extreme case requiring the tribunal to act of its own motion. Its conclusion was within the obvious evidential parameters and was not a novel or unforeseeable conclusion requiring further submissions.
5. The statement was sufficiently specific. Although the tribunal had not quantified the provision by hours, professional staff at the residential school could be trusted to provide the necessary provision outside school hours without being tied to a fixed number of hours. Any further precision could be addressed at the next annual review.
6. The tribunal had not treated the family’s needs as an independent educational entitlement. It had considered the parents’ circumstances only because they showed that the parents could not realistically deliver the specialist educational provision required by the child. The appeal was therefore dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 dismissed. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.