London Borough of Bromley v [1999] EWCA Civ 3038 (26 May 1999)

London Borough of Bromley v [1999] EWCA Civ 3038 (26 May 1999)

Therapies required by S, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy, can constitute special educational provision if they directly relate to his learning difficulties. The Tribunal's decision to classify these therapies as educational was within its expert judgment and not legally erroneous. However, the Tribunal's order to amend Parts 2 and 3 lacked sufficient specificity and should be removed.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 3038
Parties
Appellant/applicant: London Borough of Bromley; Respondent: Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Second and Third Respondents: Mr & Mrs C.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs save as to amendments to Parts 2 and 3; Tribunal's order to amend Parts 2 and 3 removed; leave to appeal to House of Lords refused.
Legal Topics
Special Educational Needs, Statutory Interpretation, Therapeutic Provision in Education, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Education Law Administrative Law Disability Law Special Educational Needs Statutory Interpretation Therapeutic Provision in Education Tribunal Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Bromley

Appellant/applicant

Special Educational Needs Tribunal

Respondent

Mr & Mrs C.

Second and Third Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether therapies such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy constitute 'special educational provision' under the Education Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's order to amend Parts 2 and 3 of the statement was sufficiently specific
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'special educational provision' versus 'non-educational provision'

Ratio Decidendi

Therapies required by S, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy, can constitute special educational provision if they directly relate to his learning difficulties. The Tribunal's decision to classify these therapies as educational was within its expert judgment and not legally erroneous. However, the Tribunal's order to amend Parts 2 and 3 lacked sufficient specificity and should be removed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs save as to amendments to Parts 2 and 3; Tribunal's order to amend Parts 2 and 3 removed; leave to appeal to House of Lords refused.

Orders

  • Part 4 of the statement to be amended to specify Coney Hill School as placement.
  • Direction to amend Parts 2 and 3 of the statement removed.