[2024] UKUT 128 (AAC)

Mr Gillie submitted that ground 3 was parasitic on grounds 1 and 4 and repeated the submissions made in respect of those grounds.

Ground 3 was an impermissible attempt to disagree with the findings and reasons of the Tribunal. The specific factors raised by the Council had been traversed earlier in his skeleton argument, but by way of a brief summary:

the “procedural failings” were not irrelevant; they were a failure to comply with a mandatory and integral part of the legislation.

the Council’s contentions about “comparisons” were misplaced. The Tribunal was entitled to find that T would be prejudiced compared to the children of civilian families. That comparative disadvantage was precisely why the Armed Forces Covenant existed at all. The Tribunal did not make findings of “unfairness”. The Council’s contentions simply amounted to a different analysis of the facts before the Tribunal. That was insufficient to found an error of law.

the Tribunal did not assume that transferring an EHCP guaranteed continuity of provision, but in any event, that again was an impermissible attack based on an overly narrow textual analysis of the judgment.

the Tribunal’s conclusions about prejudice were entirely open to it. The Council simply disagreed with them. That was insufficient to vitiate the Tribunal’s findings, but in any event, it was quite right to conclude that prejudice was a relevant matter in this case.