F Primary School v T & Ors

An appeal from a specialist tribunal lies only on a point of law. The court must respect the tribunal’s findings and evaluation of the facts unless an error of law is shown. A tribunal’s reasons need not be elaborate, but must explain the factual basis and broad reasoning sufficiently to show why the parties won or lost and whether a legal issue arises. In disability discrimination cases, justification and reasonable adjustment are assessed objectively and by reference to the particular treatment and circumstances. The court must not substitute its own view of the merits for that of the specialist tribunal.

The governing body of a primary school appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that two fixed-term exclusions of a pupil with a mental impairment were unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The appeal alleged inadequate reasons, errors in applying reasonable adjustment and justification requirements, inappropriate criteria for aggressive behaviour, and impermissible use of specialist expertise. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in law or had merely reached factual and evaluative conclusions with which the school disagreed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s order, including its requirements concerning review, support and an apology, was to be obeyed to the extent that it had not already been complied with. The school accepted liability for the first respondent’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
2. Under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, the appeal was confined to a point of law. The court’s function was not to reconsider the merits, make its own factual evaluation, or decide whether the school’s handling of the pupil’s behaviour was preferable. Findings and evaluation were matters for the Tribunal unless an error of law, including irrationality in the Wednesbury sense, was established.
3. The Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. Following the approach restated in W v Leeds City Council and SENDIST [2005] ELR 617, reasons need not be elaborate or formalistic. They must provide an outline of the relevant story, the basic factual conclusions and sufficient reasoning to explain the result and enable an appellate court to identify any question of law.
4. The Tribunal applied the statutory language of sections 28 B and 28 C of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The court rejected the school’s attempt to add a separate legal test based on procedural adequacy. The correct approach was an objective assessment, considering each exclusion separately and evaluating, in the round, whether the less favourable treatment was justified and whether reasonable adjustments had been made.
5. Whether the school had sufficiently absorbed relevant training was an evidential and evaluative issue, not impermissible evidence supplied by the Tribunal itself. A specialist tribunal may use its expertise to evaluate evidence properly before it, provided it does not introduce evidence which the parties have had no opportunity to challenge.
6. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The court emphasised that dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s assessment of difficult facts does not create a right of appeal absent an error of law.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: found that the second and third exclusions unlawfully discriminated against the pupil under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and made remedial orders.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal and directed that the Tribunal’s order be obeyed so far as outstanding.