![[2024] UKUT 139 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings (including the name of the school)
or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings (including the name of the school).
Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Summary of this decision
The appellants’ appeal to the Upper Tribunal succeeds. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involves legal errors in relation to the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments in respect of the delivery of the curriculum. The decision is set aside insofar as it concerns that claim (but not otherwise). That claim now needs to be reheard by a new and different First-tier Tribunal. The new tribunal may reach the same, or a different, decision to that of the previous Tribunal.
This decision is structured as follows:-
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is that the appeal is allowed
- or any information that would be likely to lead to the identification of any of them or any member of their families in connection with these proceedings (including the name of the school)
- Introduction 3
- Factual background
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grant of permission
- The relevant legal principles
- The grounds of appeal: discussion and conclusions
- Ground A – “The First-tier Tribunal erred in finding that a school is entitled to take time and to exercise discretion and professional judgment as to the steps that it takes and the adjustments that
- Ground C – “A finding that there was no dictation or copying and that D’s written work was her own was not open to the First-tier Tribunal on the evidence”
- Ground D – “The overall conclusion that there was no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments was the result of a misdirection in law, because that duty does not merely require some steps to
- Conclusions