[2024] UKUT 166 (AAC)

Given the nature of the error of law in the decision that has been identified, my inclination, had I set the decision aside, would have been to remit the case back to the tribunal for reconsideration – it would not have been appropriate to remake the decision myself.

The Respondent submitted that such course of action would have been purely academic, because the EHC plan which was the subject matter of the decision had, in effect, been superseded by a new EHC plan for S, which was issued on 14 February 2024, and which contained identical social care provisions to those which are the subject matter of this appeal; the Appellant had notified an appeal against that new EHCP plan; and that there was to be a hearing of that new appeal to the tribunal, in due course.

I agree that to remit this case back to the tribunal would be an academic exercise in these circumstances; I therefore refrain from setting the decision aside (which would have forced me to choose between remitting, and redeciding). My hope and expectation is that this decision will be placed before the tribunal considering the Appellant’s “new” appeal, so that the points made in it can be borne in mind when deciding that appeal.