The court recognised a distinction between educational and non-educational provision as it affected a statement of special educational needs. Judge LJ: ‘Consistent with the relevant statutory provision, Part 3 of the Statement must make provision for the educational needs specified in Part 2: no more, no less. Provision is not required to be made in Part 3 for matters of background and comment, nor even for needs which in the judgment of SENDIST do not amount to educational needs.’
Wall LJ discussed the need for reasons to be given by SENDIST: ‘I do not think it necessary for this court to add to the already substantial jurisprudence on this topic. Speaking for myself, I have always regarded the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham MR (as he then was) in this court in Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250 (even though it substantially antedates the incorporation into English Law of ECHR) as the definitive exposition of the attitude superior courts should adopt to the reasons given by Tribunals. Whilst, of course, some aspects of the reasoning processes of different specialist tribunals are unique to the particular speciality which is engaged, I see no reason, in this context, to distinguish between Employment Tribunals and what are now SENDISTs. ‘
Judges:
Judge LJ, Wall LJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 988
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) v Brain CA 1981
The Court discussed how to evaluate whether the employers acted reasonably: ‘Whether someone acted reasonably is always a pure question of fact. Where parliament has directed a tribunal to have regard to equity – and that, of course, means common . .
Cited by:
Cited – K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal CA 6-Mar-2007
The child was subject to the school eventually declined to clean and change him. The mother claimed that the school was discriminating.
Held: The mother had understated the frequency of the bowel accidents. The school was not properly equipped . .
Cited – H v East Sussex County Council and Others CA 31-Mar-2009
The claimant had a statement of special educational needs, which she sought to have altered to specify a different school. She appealed from a refusal to amend the statement, saying that the Tribunal had not given sufficient weight to educational . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Discrimination
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229212