[2025] UKUT 323 (AAC)

I can say very briefly that the substitution of Ms Burns’ name for Ms J’s, which was the principal focus of ground 1j, is plainly a typographical or nominal error that does not even undermine the Tribunal’s conclusion in relation to Ali’s emotional regulation needs, let alone make any difference as to placement.

The secondary point included in ground 1j, however, about the Tribunal having apparently failed to take into account Ms Burns’ lack of involvement with Ali since 2019 is potentially more significant, as is ground 1h and what the Tribunal said about the evidence on regression and progress. However, I have ultimately concluded that the error of law regarding these matters is one as to the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons (which I deal with in Ground 5) rather than as to the facts.

It seems to me to be plain that the Tribunal was aware that Ali was attending School Y on a 52-week basis and that, accordingly, reading the decision as a whole, all that the Tribunal is saying in relation to the evidence as to regression during school holidays is that the Principal of School Y understandably had not seen any regression because there had been no holidays. While the appellants are right that the Tribunal has therefore recorded the evidence as if there was no dispute on this issue, the reality is that there was little dispute on this issue. What Dr Grace says in her report about regression during holidays is, when one reads that report, apparently based principally on the concerns of parents, and it is clear that the Tribunal understood there was a dispute between parents and the local authority as to regression during the holidays because that is why the parties had been unable to agree this part of the wording of Section B.

I do not therefore consider there was any material misdirection as to the evidence in relation to regression. However, it is apparent that the Tribunal’s conclusion on this issue rested heavily on the view it took as to the overall progress that Ali had made while at School X. I do consider it has erred in law in its approach to that issue and/or in its reasons, and the failure to acknowledge the limited involvement of Ms Burns in this respect is relevant to that. These errors are picked up in the course of the other grounds.