[2024] UKUT 406 (AAC)

It is not strictly necessary for me to decide Ground 2. However, if it were, I would have been minded to accept Mr Dunlop’s argument, for the Appellant, that the First-tier Tribunal unfairly determined an issue (impairment) that the Appellant reasonably believed had been conceded by the School. Had the School’s response to the Appellant’s claims been in the same terms as its skeleton argument for the proposed Tribunal hearing, the Appellant would have no cause for complaint but, as it was, the only reasonable reading of the School’s formal response was that it did not intend to dispute that both children satisfied the impairment element of the 2010 Act’s definition of disability.