KW & Anor v London Borough of Lewisham & anor

A specialist educational needs tribunal must determine every substantive dispute before it and give reasons sufficient to explain why a party succeeded or failed on each substantial issue. It may prefer one body of professional evidence to another. Where competing professional views are central to the dispute, it is sufficient in an appropriate case to identify which evidence is preferred and explain why the preferred provision meets the child’s needs. A tribunal’s conclusion that a suitable day-school placement can meet the child’s educational needs necessarily rejects the claimed need for residential or extended-hours educational provision. The adequacy of reasons is assessed in the context of the issues, evidence and expertise of the tribunal.

The appellants, parents of a child with complex epilepsy and significant special educational needs, challenged a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning the contents of his statement of special educational needs and the school named in it.

The Tribunal allowed part of the appeal by requiring additional one-to-one support, but upheld the naming of a maintained special day school rather than a specialist residential school. The parents appealed to the Administrative Court on points of law, alleging inadequate reasons, failure to determine the need for education beyond conventional school hours, and irrationality in concluding that the day school could meet the child’s needs.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was adequate to explain both the limited success and failure of the appeal. The appellants were told why the Tribunal preferred the evidence supporting provision at W school.
2. A special educational needs tribunal must determine each substantive dispute and give reasons sufficient to enable the parties to understand why they won or lost on the substantial issues. The standard is applied in the context of the subject matter, the evidence and the tribunal’s specialist expertise.
3. The Tribunal had recognised the competing contentions that the child required a specialist epilepsy placement and educational provision beyond conventional school hours. It had summarised the supporting evidence and the evidence concerning W school’s expertise, resources and experience in dealing with children with epilepsy and complex difficulties.
4. The Tribunal expressly accepted that the child’s educational needs included developing independence and control over his environment, and that any placement had to understand the effect of epilepsy on learning and progress. Its conclusion that those needs could be met at W school, together with its rejection of the need for residential provision, necessarily rejected the claimed need for a conventional-day extension or a 24-hour curriculum.
5. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer the evidence of the LEA’s witnesses. It explained that W school did not underestimate the child’s difficulties and had sufficient expertise, funding, therapeutic provision and procedures to meet his needs. The reasons were therefore sufficient, even though they did not analyse every aspect of the expert evidence separately.
6. The appeal failed. By consent, the appellants were ordered to contribute £5,000 towards the first respondent’s costs, with fees and disbursements payable within 14 days.

1. Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: The appellants’ appeal was allowed in part concerning the statement’s contents and additional one-to-one support, but the challenge to the named day school was dismissed.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal on points of law was dismissed.