[2025] UKUT 187 (AAC)

The Tribunal failed to address a key disputed issue in its decision making; the amendments sought to SLT provision. The only reference to SLT in the decision is at paragraph 26(a) of the decision: ‘Turning to the EHCP itself and the provision, its (sic) is clear that 8-10 hours of SaLT 1:1 is indicated’. This reflected agreed provision in the working document: ‘SLT to deliver 8-10 weekly 1-hr sessions in a school setting. The sessions should include direct intervention and admin time for case notes. (10 Hours)’. However, the decision says nothing about the aspects of SLT provision which remained in dispute.

Notwithstanding the absence of any reasoning, the EHCP ordered by the Tribunal demonstrates that the Tribunal did take a decision on these issues in substance. At page18, the EHCP includes the agreed wording, but removes both the wording the Appellants sought to be deleted and the wording they sought to be included.

The Appellants referred to the Practice Direction from the Senior President of Tribunals on Reasons for decisions dated 4 June 2024 (the Practice Direction), at paragraph 5: ‘Where reasons are given, they must always be adequate, clear, appropriately concise, and focused upon the principal controversial issues on which the outcome of the case has turned. To be adequate, the reasons for a judicial decision must explain to the parties why they have won and lost. The reasons must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the main issues in dispute.They must always enable an appellate body to understand why the decision was reached, so that it is able to assess whether the decision involved the making of an error on a point of law’.

When considering permission to appeal, Judge McCarthy concluded this ground disclosed an error of law; failure to resolve a dispute between parties. Judge McCarthy decided to review the decision on this point and take no action. The decision on review, that the text in question did not identify special educational provision, was made in the absence of submissions on the point and was made in error.

The text in dispute was not limited to assessment of need only and in fact described provision to G (direct or facilitative) in a number of respects. It was not reasonably open to Judge McCarthy to find that none of the text described special educational provision and that this point was so clear that it would serve no useful purpose for the parties to be able to address the Tribunal on the question at a re-hearing.