KW & Anor v London Borough of Lewisham & anor [2006] EWHC 1853 (Admin) (21 July 2006)

KW & Anor v London Borough of Lewisham & anor [2006] EWHC 1853 (Admin) (21 July 2006)

The Tribunal gave adequate reasons for its decision, summarised the evidence and contentions, and made clear findings as to why it preferred the LEA's evidence that G's needs could be met at W school within the conventional school day; the appellants were sufficiently informed why they lost on the main issues.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1853 (Admin)
Parties
Appellants: K. W. and V. W.; 1st Respondent: London Borough of Lewisham; 2nd Respondent: Susan Rees, Chair of Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (administrative Court) / Judgment on Appeal From SENDIST Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Educational Needs Statements, Residential Vs Day School Provision, Tribunal Reasoning Requirements, Expert Evidence in SENDIST Appeals
Education Law Administrative Law Special Educational Needs Special Educational Needs Statements Residential Vs Day School Provision Tribunal Reasoning Requirements Expert Evidence in SENDIST Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. W. and V. W.

Appellants

London Borough of Lewisham

1st Respondent

Susan Rees, Chair of Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (administrative Court) / Judgment on Appeal From SENDIST Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SENDIST failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting expert evidence supporting residential placement for G.
  2. 2 Whether SENDIST failed to address the need for an extended school day or waking day curriculum.
  3. 3 Whether SENDIST acted irrationally in concluding that G's needs could be met at W school within ordinary school hours.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal gave adequate reasons for its decision, summarised the evidence and contentions, and made clear findings as to why it preferred the LEA's evidence that G's needs could be met at W school within the conventional school day; the appellants were sufficiently informed why they lost on the main issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay £5,000 as a contribution towards the first respondent's costs, payable within 14 days.