Dermott, R (on the application of) v Sendist & Anor

A specialist tribunal must consider the substantial evidence relevant to the central issues and give sufficient reasons for rejecting expert evidence. Its expertise does not relieve it from explaining significant conclusions. Where the tribunal proposes to decide an issue or make an adverse finding not raised by the parties, procedural fairness requires that the parties have an opportunity to address it. A decision based on a misunderstanding of material evidence is erroneous in law and may be irrational. The appropriate remedy may be remission to a differently constituted tribunal.

The claimant appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 16 February 2005. The Tribunal had determined that her autistic son should attend St Francis Xavier College alone, and had described his existing placement at Merchant Taylors School as inappropriate.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal's treatment of expert evidence concerning the risks of changing schools, its reasons for rejecting that evidence, findings made without giving the parties an opportunity to comment, and its understanding of the availability of specialist outreach provision.

1. The appeal was allowed in substance. The Tribunal's decision was erroneous in law and the matter was remitted for further consideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal failed to have regard to the whole of Dr Randall's evidence, including his evidence about bullying, the risks associated with changing schools and the possible consequences of a further breakdown. Had the evidence been properly appreciated, those matters should have been addressed in greater detail.
3. Applying the principles stated in R (L) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2003] EWHC 2907, reasons must address the substantial points raised so that the parties can understand the basis of the decision. A specialist tribunal may use its expertise, but where it rejects expert evidence it should say so specifically and, where required, explain why. Reciting evidence is not a substitute for giving reasons. If the tribunal uses its expertise to decide an issue, it should give the parties an opportunity to comment on its reasoning and challenge it.
4. The Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the expert evidence on a central issue. The fact that its duty was to provide only a summary of its reasons did not remove that obligation.
5. Applying Richardson v Solihull MBC [1998] ELR 319, specialist expertise does not permit a tribunal to make findings on which the parties have had no opportunity to comment. The Tribunal selected a placement not proposed by either party and found that Merchant Taylors lacked suitable facilities without raising those matters at the hearing. The affected parties were thereby deprived of an opportunity to produce relevant material.
6. The Tribunal also proceeded on a false understanding that specialist outreach provision was unavailable. Its misunderstanding of material evidence constituted irrationality and contributed to the legal error.
7. There was an order for Legal Aid assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act was allowed in substance. The Tribunal's decision was remitted for further consideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.
• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: decision dated 16 February 2005 directing education at St Francis Xavier College and treating the Merchant Taylors placement as inappropriate.