Gilliatt Appeal against decision of LEA not to prepare a statement and SENT which upheld the LEA’s refusal. The LEA contended that the child’s needs were met within the school with input from the SENCO, and Educational Psychologist. The parents submitted evidence from a speech and language therapist and an educational psychologist that the child was suffering from a semantic pragmatic language disorder and his needs could not be met within the school. The tribunal’s reasons were not clear as to the extent to which they did or did not accept this evidence, or their reasons for not accepting some of it. The case was remitted to the SENT for rehearing.
Judges:
Mr Justice Kay
Citations:
[1998] EWHC Admin 64
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Education
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.138185
