Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 406 (AAC)

Fecha: 09-Abr-2024

Tribunal’s finding that neither child was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010

Tribunal’s finding that neither child was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010

11.

The First-tier Tribunal found that the Appellant had failed to show that either child was disabled for the purposes of the 2010 Act.

12.

In relation to S, the Tribunal:

(a)

found that “there is no evidence that the school identified any mental impairment during [S’s] time at Kingston Grammar School between September 2019 and July 2022”. The evidence also demonstrated that S was academically very able (paragraph 27 of the Tribunal’s reasons);

(b)

placed little weight on the report of Dr Nwagbogu, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. The Tribunal’s reasons do not record Dr Nwagbogu’s diagnosis but his report diagnosed ADHD. The Tribunal did not find the doctor’s report persuasive because:

the report was partly based on a questionnaire completed by the Appellant known as a Connors questionnaire as well as a ‘Teacher’s Connors’ (as the Tribunal described it). However, neither questionnaire was appended to the report nor was the teacher’s identity disclosed (the School informed the Tribunal that they had not been contacted by Dr Nwagbogu) (paragraph 31);

Dr Nwagbogu’s conclusions were arrived at without evidence from the School as to S’s presentation during his three academic years there (paragraph 39);

Since the School’s evidence contradicted that of the unnamed Connors teacher, and the Appellant’s assertions, “it would appear that the assessment was incomplete” (paragraph 39);

(c)

took into account that the Appellant, when completing an application form for S’s admission to the School, did not mention dyslexia (paragraph 41);

(d)

rejected Dr Thompson’s evidence that S had depression. His written evidence gave no indication that he was qualified to make such a diagnosis and lacked detail as to the extent to this condition affected S’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities;

(e)

even if S had a mental impairment within the meaning of the 2020 Act, there was no evidence that such an impairment had any substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

(a)

noted that the report of Dr Vassiliadou, clinical psychologist, who diagnosed ASD stated that D’s assessment included completion of standard questionnaires including a school functioning report. However, the School’s witnesses asserted that they were not contacted by Dr Vassiliadou and completed no such report (paragraph 48 of the Tribunal’s reasons);

(b)

considered it possible that Dr Vassiliadou thought that Kingston Grammar School had closed down, which was why D was being home-schooled, and this explained why no information was sought from the School (paragraph 49);

(c)

found “itself unable to place any weight on upon Dr Vassiliadou’s assessment because he has been unable to triangulate data from a variety of sources and in particular to obtain up-to-date information from the school which provided education for [D] in the 3 years preceding the assessment” (paragraph 50);

(d)

found that “in any event, there is no evidence to show that the traits identified by Dr Vassiliadou had any substantial adverse impact on [D’s] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities” and “he does speculate at page B357 on ways in which her autistic qualities might influence certain things, but does not reach a conclusion on that. Furthermore, the witnesses from the school provide evidence that [D] did not have any such difficulties with normal day-to-day activities”.