M, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire County Council & Anor

A special educational needs tribunal must address the substantial points raised by the parties. Where professional evidence materially supports a residential or waking-day curriculum, the tribunal must engage with the reasons for that evidence and explain its conclusion. It cannot adequately dispose of the issue merely by finding that a proposed day school can meet the child’s needs.

Reasons may be given in summary form, but a recitation of evidence is insufficient. A tribunal may reject expert evidence without accepting every detail, provided its reasoning is intelligible and addresses the central issue. Educational provision may involve a partnership between parents and professionals, and a requirement for parental participation is not unlawful merely because it involves implementation at home.

The claimant appealed under section 11 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1992 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning her daughter’s statement of special educational needs. The Tribunal named a maintained day special school rather than the independent residential school sought by the parents.

The Tribunal accepted that the residential school could meet the child’s educational needs, but concluded that the maintained school could do so without residential placement and that the residential option would involve unreasonable public expenditure. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had given adequate reasons for rejecting professional evidence that a waking-day curriculum and residential placement were necessary.

1. Appeal allowed and matter remitted. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside for reconsideration by the same Tribunal with an open mind.
2. Under regulation 36(2) of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001, reasons may be in summary form, but they must address the substantial points raised so that the parties can understand why the decision was reached. The guidance summarised in R (L) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2004] ELR 161 was applicable. Mere recitation of evidence is insufficient, and expert evidence which is rejected should be addressed expressly where the circumstances require it. The caution in Staffordshire County Council v J and J [1996] ELR 418 did not justify overlooking the central issue.
3. The Tribunal had summarised substantial professional evidence that the child needed a stable, consistent environment extending beyond school hours. Its conclusion that the maintained school could meet the child’s needs did not grapple with whether the waking-day curriculum was itself necessary. That issue could affect whether the proposed school was suitable. The reasoning therefore failed to address the core of the parents’ case.
4. The challenge to the requirement that parents implement educational programmes at home failed. The provision had been proposed by the parents themselves and was not unlawful. As stated in DM and KC v Essex County Council [2003] EWHC 135 (Admin), education may properly involve a degree of partnership between parents and professionals. The wording could, however, be reconsidered to make the required specialist input more specific.
5. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the maintained school could provide the required speech and language therapy. The existence of therapists at the school meant that predominantly group-based work did not preclude individual therapy.
6. The claimant was awarded 70 per cent of her costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the statutory appeal against the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and remitted the matter to the same Tribunal for reconsideration.