London Borough of Hillingdon v SS and TS and ES (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Ward |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 250 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs,Special educational needs - special educational provision - naming school or other institution in EHC plan,Ward,C |
| Date | 12 June 2017 |
| Published date | 04 July 2017 |
[2019] AACR 9
LB Hillingdon v SS and others (SEN)
1
[2019] AACR 9
(LB Hillingdon v SS and others (SEN)
[2017] UKUT 0250 (AAC))
Judge Ward HS/1164/2017
12 June 2017
The Children and Families Act 2014 − Special Educational Needs and Disability
Regulations 2014 − Education Health and Care (‘EHC’) plan – Naming school or other
institution in EHC Plan – Education Act 1996 – Powers of the First-tier Tribunal
The appeal concerned the education of E, aged 19 at the date of the First-tier Tr ibunal’s (F-tT) decision. It
concerned sections B, F and I of E ’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The local authority had decided
that a particular school (O School), an independent school which had not been approved under section 41(g)of
the 2014 Act, could not be named in the EHC plan. On 12 January 2017 the F-tT decided that section I of the
plan should be amended so as to read ‘Full time placement at an education setting offering a pe rsonalised
curriculum, namely O School’ and (b) that 4 identified bullet points from the working document should be
moved from section B to section
A of the plan. The appellant local authority appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).
The issues before the UT were, whether the F-tT had power to name O School and power to make the
amendment to the working document it did which touched upon section A of the EHC P lan, a matter over which
the FtT has no jurisdiction.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that:
1. section 38 of the 2014 Act concerns the process under which a preference for a particular school or
institution maybe expressed and receive a degree of statutory support. Section 38 does not limit the
range of schools and institutions which maybe named i n an EHC plan albeit a preference for those not
within section 38(3) will not receive that statutory support. Consequently, an independent school such
as School O could be named under section 40 (2)
2. the amendments made were “consequential amendments” permitted by regulation 43(2) (f) of the 2014
regulations.
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
Mr Mark Small, solicitor appeared for the appellant
Mr David Wolfe QC appeared for the respondents
Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at London
dated 12 January 2017 under reference EH312/15/00014 did not involve the making of a
material error of law.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The appeal concerns the education of E, born in July 1997 and so aged 19 at the date of
the First-tier Tribunal’s (“F-tT’s”) decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial