Y v London Borough of Lambeth [2009] EWHC 690 (Admin) (12 March 2009)

Y v London Borough of Lambeth [2009] EWHC 690 (Admin) (12 March 2009)

The Tribunal did not err in law in its assessment of the child's needs, the specification of speech and language therapy, the evaluation of expert evidence, or the application of section 9 of the Education Act 1996. The Tribunal's reasoning was adequate, its approach to flexibility in provision was lawful, and the cost differential justified its decision. No error of law was established on any ground of appeal.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 690 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Y; First Respondent: London Borough of Lambeth; Second Respondent: Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 11 of the Tribunal and Enquiries Act 1992 / Judgment on Appeal From SENDIST Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Educational Needs, Tribunal Appeals, Provision of Educational Support, Parental Choice in Education, Costs in Education Placement
Education Law Administrative Law Disability Law Special Educational Needs Tribunal Appeals Provision of Educational Support Parental Choice in Education Costs in Education Placement

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

Y

Appellant

London Borough of Lambeth

First Respondent

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 11 of the Tribunal and Enquiries Act 1992 / Judgment on Appeal From SENDIST Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the child's special educational needs and provision
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to specify the required speech and language therapy provision
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider or give reasons for rejecting expert evidence on ABA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in its assessment of the child's needs, the specification of speech and language therapy, the evaluation of expert evidence, or the application of section 9 of the Education Act 1996. The Tribunal's reasoning was adequate, its approach to flexibility in provision was lawful, and the cost differential justified its decision. No error of law was established on any ground of appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order in favour of the respondent not to be enforced without leave of the court