London Borough of Camden v KT
[2023] UKUT 225 (AAC)
AA & Anor v North Somerset Council
15 February 2023
[2023] UKUT 52 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Parents appealed a decision about their child's special education plan. A school withdrew its offer late in the process, but the judge decided this didn't change the outcome and the appeal was dismissed because the child was already in a new school.
Key Facts
- •AA & BB appealed an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for their son, R, to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The FTT decision concerned the placement to be specified in section I of R’s EHC plan.
- •The local authority (North Somerset Council) proposed Belgrave School, but the parents disputed its suitability and argued for education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) for a year, followed by transition to Brymore Academy.
- •Before the FTT final hearing, Belgrave School withdrew its offer of a place for R.
- •The FTT was unaware of the withdrawal until the final hearing and did not name a specific school in section I, instead specifying a mainstream school.
- •The Appellants appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) arguing the proceedings were unfair due to the late withdrawal notification and the FTT's failure to consider an adjournment.
- •A subsequent appeal concerning a later EHC plan became academic as R was attending a mainstream Academy.
Legal Principles
A local authority has a duty to assist the Tribunal by making all relevant information available, not just information that supports its case.
AJ v London Borough of Croydon [2020] UKUT 246 (AAC)
The power to arrange for special educational provision otherwise than at school under section 61(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014 only arises if it would be inappropriate for the provision to be made in a school (section 61(2)).
Children and Families Act 2014
The Upper Tribunal's role is circumscribed by the law under which it operates and the specific grounds of appeal. It cannot conduct a roving examination of one party’s conduct.
New evidence on appeal is admissible only if it meets the Ladd v Marshall criteria (could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained for use at first instance; would probably have influenced the result; is apparently credible).
Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Appellants failed to demonstrate that the late withdrawal of Belgrave School's offer materially prejudiced their case. The FTT correctly applied section 61 of the 2014 Act, and the issue of the school placement was not pivotal to the application of that section. The appeal was deemed academic due to subsequent changes to R's EHC plan.