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 experts without stating why.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court contrasted the approaches taken in KW and in H v Kent. It was important not to raise statements made in a particular context to being ones of law. The Regulations required the provision of summary reasons only. In this case the educational expert had relied on grounds outside those strictly relating to educational needs. The tribunal had in fact properly taken account of all the evidence.

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lord Justice Toulson
[2009] EWCA Civ 249, Times 22-Apr-2009, [2009] ELR 161
Bailii
Education Act 1996 324, Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/600) 836, Education (Special Educational Needs) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3455) 16
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKW and VW v London Borough of Lewisham 2007
Wilkie J said: ‘In my judgment, in a case such as this, where there were contending points of view being expressed by various professionals on either side of the argument, the tribunal has given sufficient reasons by identifying which side of the . .
CitedH v Kent County Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal 2000
Grigson J said: ‘A specialist tribunal such as SENDIST can use its expertise in deciding issues but if it rejects expert evidence it should state so specifically. In certain circumstances it may be required to say why it rejects it.’ . .
CitedMeek 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 . .
CitedUnion 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 . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of LR) v Waltham Forest Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal Admn 21-Nov-2003
Beatson J considered the extent of reasons to be given by a SENDIST for its decision: ‘Reasons must, first, deal with the substantial points that have been raised so that the parties can understand why a decision has been reached. This is seen from . .
CitedW v Leeds City Council and SENDIST CA 29-Jul-2005
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 . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.327995