C v Special Educational Needs Tribunal & Anor [1998] EWHC Admin 1029 (3 November 1998)

C v Special Educational Needs Tribunal & Anor [1998] EWHC Admin 1029 (3 November 1998)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to specify with sufficient detail the provision for occupational therapy, by unlawfully delegating its responsibility for determining the extent of the National Curriculum to a future assessment, and by selecting a placement (PRU) that was not shown to be capable of meeting the child's identified needs. The decision was not reasonably open to the Tribunal on the material before it and lacked adequate reasoning.

Citation
[1998] EWHC Admin 1029
Parties
Appellant: C; First Respondent: Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Second Respondent: London Borough of Greenwich (LEA); Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Special Educational Needs Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Specificity of Statements of Special Educational Needs, Appropriate Educational Placement, Tribunal Powers and Duties, Remittal for Rehearing, Costs Orders
Education Law Administrative Law Special Educational Needs Specificity of Statements of Special Educational Needs Appropriate Educational Placement Tribunal Powers and Duties Remittal for Rehearing Costs Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

Special Educational Needs Tribunal

First Respondent

London Borough of Greenwich (LEA)

Second Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Special Educational Needs Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to specify with sufficient detail the provision for occupational therapy in the statement of special educational needs.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal lawfully delegated its responsibility for determining the extent of the National Curriculum to a future assessment.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's choice of the PRU as placement was consistent with the needs and provision identified in the statement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to specify with sufficient detail the provision for occupational therapy, by unlawfully delegating its responsibility for determining the extent of the National Curriculum to a future assessment, and by selecting a placement (PRU) that was not shown to be capable of meeting the child's identified needs. The decision was not reasonably open to the Tribunal on the material before it and lacked adequate reasoning.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted for urgent rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal
  • Order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act for anonymisation of the child and parents