[2024] UKUT 201 (AAC)

The error of law identified is material to the decision as respects the school named in Section I and so it is right that I set the decision aside as respects that aspect of the appeal. Equally, I see no reason to interfere with the other aspects of the decision, as they have not been challenged, and are distinct.

I do not accept the suggestion that, having set aside the decision, I should neither re-make it nor remit the case for reconsideration, on grounds that, I am told, the Respondent has recently decided to review S’s EHC plan under s44: the Appellants did not agree to this suggestion and, it seems to me, their statutory right to appeal against the contents of S’s plan as it now stands can not be affected by this separate process.

As to whether I should remake the decision as respects the school named in Section I or remit it for reconsideration, it would not be fair and just for me, as a single judge of the appellate tribunal, who heard none of the evidence first hand, to do the former. The matter in hand calls for an evaluative judgement by the fact-finding, specialist first-instance tribunal, normally comprised of a judge and specialist members. I have therefore remitted the case for rehearing of the Section I appeal. Whilst