T v Devon County Council & Anor

A tribunal determining special educational needs must explain adequately why it accepts or rejects material expert evidence, particularly where emotional needs bear on the proposed placement. Its reasons must enable the parties to understand why they won or lost and enable an appellate court to identify any error of law. The tribunal should proceed logically from the child’s needs, to the provision required to meet them, and then to placement. Provision need not always be expressed by fixed hours where flexibility is appropriate, but the required provision must first be identified. A further assessment may be directed where the tribunal has itself reached a reasoned conclusion and the assessment cannot disadvantage the child.

T’s mother appealed against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 13 April 2005. The Tribunal amended T’s statement of special educational needs but named a maintained school rather than the independent specialist school which T then attended.

The Tribunal found that the proposed maintained school could provide appropriate specialist teaching, learning support, pastoral care and any occupational therapy required. It also found that the independent placement was materially more expensive and that T could make the transition with appropriate support. T’s mother challenged the decision on four grounds: inadequate reasons for rejecting expert evidence; insufficient specification of teaching assistance and occupational therapy; unlawful reasoning concerning occupational therapy assessment; and excessive reliance on cost.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had lawfully explained its conclusion that T’s needs, including his significant emotional difficulties, could be met at the proposed placement.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal. The court held:

1. Adequacy of reasons. The Tribunal had not sufficiently explained why it rejected or discounted material evidence from the educational psychologist and psychiatrist. That evidence addressed both the need for specialist provision and the likely emotional consequences of changing schools. The Tribunal’s conclusion that T could move successfully to the proposed school did not follow from its account of the support he had received when moving to his current school. It had to address whether, given T’s particular history, he would be emotionally able to make the proposed transition.
2. Logical structure. The Tribunal had not proceeded clearly from T’s needs, to the provision required to meet those needs, and then to placement. The court emphasised that the question of emotional needs remained relevant to placement, even though T’s mother did not contend that residential provision was itself required as an educational need.
3. Specification of provision. The deletion of a fixed number of teaching-assistant hours was lawful. Applying paragraphs 8.35 and 8.37 of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice and the approach in R (IPSEA Ltd) v Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2003] ELR 393 and E v London Borough of Newham [2003] ELR 286, flexibility was appropriate in the circumstances. The Tribunal was not required to specify occupational therapy which had not been shown to be presently necessary.
4. Further assessment. The Tribunal had made its own assessment of the occupational therapy issue and had given reasons for it. Its indication that a further assessment should be obtained did not disadvantage T and was not unlawful.
5. Costs. The Tribunal had not unlawfully placed cost before T’s emotional needs. The defect lay in the inadequate explanation of how the emotional evidence affected placement.

The respondent was ordered to pay two thirds of the appellant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

The judgment was a first-instance appeal from the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal dated 13 April 2005. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed that decision and remitted the matter to a freshly constituted Tribunal.