Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) of a 16-year-old young woman ('S') with epilepsy and cerebral palsy.
- •Parents challenged sections B, F, and I of the EHCP.
- •Dispute centered on nursing/medical support, support outside school hours, and the suitability of School G.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FtT) made amendments to the EHCP and named School G.
- •Appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT) on grounds of procedural unfairness, error of law, and inadequate reasoning.
Legal Principles
Sequential approach in EHCP formulation mandated by authorities such as R v Kingston-upon-Thames and Hunter [1997] ELR 223.
R v Kingston-upon-Thames and Hunter [1997] ELR 223
Local authority's statutory duty to secure specified special educational provision (Section 42 of the 2014 Act).
Section 42 of the 2014 Act
Local authorities cannot delegate statutory responsibilities to parents/carers (A v Cambridgeshire [2002] EWHC 2391).
A v Cambridgeshire [2002] EWHC 2391
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) allows the Upper Tribunal to set aside decisions made in error of law and remit the case.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Outcomes
Permission to appeal granted.
FtT decision made in error of law.
Appeal allowed.
FtT erred in law regarding nursing/medical support and the involvement of carers in providing special educational provision.
FtT decision set aside.
Errors of law were material to the determination of the appropriate provision and placement for S.
Case remitted to the FtT for reconsideration.
To address errors in law and determine the appropriate EHCP and placement for S.