[2025] UKUT 323 (AAC)

The respondent submits in relation to ground 1h that the Tribunal’s apparent error in relation to School Y Principal’s evidence as to regression should not be understood as such when the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons are read, as they should be, without applying too fine a toothcomb. The respondent submits it is clear from elsewhere in its decision that the Tribunal knew Ali was attending School Y on a 52-week basis. It cannot have forgotten that. The respondent submits the decision can and should be read as if the Tribunal properly recorded that School Y had not seen regression during the school holidays “because he attends on a 52-week basis”. That is the only addition that is necessary to render the reasons comprehensible and accurate.

The respondent further submits that any error is immaterial because the Tribunal gave more than one reason for its conclusion in relation to regression, and that was that it accepted the evidence of Ms J as being credible generally and, in particular, that it accepted her evidence as to Ali having been on a “general trajectory of progress” while at School X. Moreover, the respondent submits, with reference to documents in the bundle, there simply was no evidence of significant regression during holidays so that the Tribunal’s conclusion would have to have been the same in any event.

As to ground 1j, the respondent submits that the substitution of Ms Burns’ name for Ms J’s is plainly a typographical error and that the issue about Ali’s emotional regulation to which the error went was not material to the decision on placement and is thus not material on this appeal. The respondent further submits that the Tribunal did not fail to take into account that Ms Burns had not personally observed Ali since 2019. In her witness statement she explains that she had read the bundle and also spoken to Ms J in advance of acting as a witness in Tribunal and she could therefore properly give her professional opinion on what she had read and heard about Ali since 2019.