A, R (on the application of) v Borough of Lambeth & Anor

A tribunal deciding whether a local education authority must undertake a statutory assessment must give reasons addressing the substantial points raised, enabling the parties to understand the decision. It may use its own expertise and is not required to accept uncontradicted expert evidence. Where it rejects expert evidence, it should identify the disagreement and, where necessary, explain it. Reasons are assessed by reading the decision as a whole. A tribunal may accept an expert’s assessment of a child’s difficulties while rejecting the expert’s conclusion that statutory assessment is necessary, provided it explains why the school can make appropriate provision from its own resources.

The claimant appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dismissing his appeal under section 329 of the Education Act 1996. The Tribunal had upheld the local education authority’s refusal to assess his son’s special educational needs.

The grounds alleged inadequate reasons for rejecting uncontradicted speech and language therapy and educational psychology evidence, perversity in rejecting the latter evidence, and irrational reliance on school assessment results. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s reasons, read as a whole, adequately explained its conclusion that statutory assessment was unnecessary.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s summary reasons had to deal with the substantial points raised so that the parties could understand why the decision had been reached, applying R(L) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 2907; [2004] ELR 161.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to use its own expertise. Uncontradicted expert evidence did not have to be accepted. Where expert evidence was rejected, the Tribunal should state that specifically and explain the rejection where the circumstances required it.
3. Read as a whole, the Tribunal’s decision clearly identified the limited extent of its disagreement with the speech and language therapist’s report. It accepted the need for a speech and language programme but considered that 30-minute weekly sessions, followed where necessary by teaching-assistant delivery under therapist supervision, were sufficient. The Tribunal was not required to explain why 30 minutes rather than 45 minutes was appropriate where the duration was a matter of professional judgment.
4. The Tribunal also accepted the educational psychologist’s account of the child’s difficulties but rejected her conclusion that a statutory assessment was required. It explained that the school could coordinate and provide appropriate support from its own resources, and that LEA involvement was unnecessary. The Tribunal had applied the relevant Code criterion concerning relevant and purposeful action by the school.
5. The Tribunal did not treat SAT results as the whole answer. It considered literacy and numeracy progress alongside speech and language provision and the wider difficulties identified in the psychological report. Disagreement with that evaluative conclusion did not make it perverse.

The claimant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs, subject to assessment, with enforcement prohibited without leave of the court. The claimant’s costs were also to be assessed for Community Legal Services purposes.

The judgment does not state any further appellate history. This was an appeal to the Administrative Court under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 from the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.