[2023] UKUT 311 (AAC)

Ground 1:the Tribunal erred by finding that the decision taken by the Appellant, for A not to attend the School premises, was a continuing act, as opposed to an act with a continuing consequence. In so doing, the Tribunal erred in its conclusion that it had jurisdiction to determine the claim.

Ground 2: even if the Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the decision taken by the Appellant, that A not attending the School premises, was a continuing act, on the facts the continuation of that act had only been intended to operate for 10 weeks. The Appellant’s ability to facilitate A’s return to the School was then overtaken by events beyond the Appellant’s control. The Tribunal failed to recognise that the ending of the continuing act after 10 weeks (or at the earlier point that A was moved to the care home) rendered the claim outside of its jurisdiction.

Ground 3: in its analysis of the Appellant’s legitimate aims, the Tribunal in error overlooked one of the pleaded aims, which rendered unsafe its analysis of proportionality.

Ground 4: in its assessment of proportionality, the Tribunal: (i) failed to take into account relevant considerations and/or reached a perverse conclusion; (ii) wrongly attributed any failure to provide education after the 02February 2021 decision to the Appellant; (iii) erred by failing to critically analyse whether the steps it had identified as being proportionate measures would have made any difference to the legitimate aims being pursued; and (iv) failed to apply properly a reasonably necessary standard.

Ground 5: although not raised at the Tribunal hearing, the Appellant argues that the Tribunal erred in its approach to section 15(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, by finding that there was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability after A’s move to the care home on 06April 2021.