[2025] UKUT 323 (AAC)

Appeal No. UA-2025-000951-HS

RULE 14 Order

Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants’ child in these proceedings. This includes his name, the appellants’ names, the names of the schools in issue and the names of the teachers at those schools. This order does not apply to: (a) the appellants; (b) any person to whom the appellants disclose such a matter or who learn of it through publication by the appellants, for reasons aimed in good faith at promoting their child’s best interests; or (c) any person exercising statutory (including judicial) functions in relation to their child where knowledge of the matter is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions.

Between:

HJ and MM

Appellants

- v -

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Hearing date(s): 23 September 2025

Mode of hearing: By video (CVP)

Decided on consideration of the papers

Representation:

Appellant: Leon Glenister and Louise McCormack (counsel)

Respondent: Anna Tkaczynska (counsel)

On appeal from:

Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) (Special Educational Needs and Disability)

Tribunal Case No: EH330/23/00332

Tribunal Venue: By video

Decision Date: 14 March 2025

SUMMARY OF DECISION

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (85)

This case required the First-tier Tribunal to decide whether a child’s special educational needs could reasonably be met within day special school provision or whether the child reasonably required educational provision extending beyond the normal school day, up to and including, a “waking day curriculum” that required a residential special school placement. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to adopt the necessary logical approach to the issues it needed to decide and by failing to give adequate reasons for its conclusion. In particular: the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusion that the child was previously making reasonable progress in all areas while at day special school; wrongly adopted a global approach to the question of whether provision outside normal school hours was reasonably required rather than considering what specific provision was required to meet the child’s various special educational needs; wrongly proceeded on the basis that a need for consistency of approach outside school hours could not of itself equate to a need for education or training outside normal school hours; and wrongly assumed that because the provision the child was receiving in his 52-week residential special school placement did not include structured programmes of education it could not amount to education or training outside normal school hours.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.

DECISION