HN v South Tyneside Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wright |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKUT 380 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Special educational needs,Tribunal procedure,practice,Special educational needs - discontinuing a statement,practice - tribunal jurisdiction,Wright,S |
| Date | 06 December 2019 |
| Published date | 15 January 2020 |
HN –v- South Tyneside Council (SEN) [2019] UKUT 380 (AAC)
HS/1654/2018
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No: HS/1654/2018
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright
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
children in these proceedings. This order does not apply to: (a) the
child’s parents, (b) any person to whom the children’s parents, in
due exercise of their parental responsibility, discloses such a
matter or who learns of it through publication by either parent,
where such publication is a due exercise of parental responsibility;
and (c) any person exercising statutory (including judicial)
functions in relation to the children where knowledge of the matter
is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions.
DECISION
The Upper Tribunal dismisses the appeal of the appellant
father.
The strike out decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 11
April 2018 under reference EH393/18/00001 did not involve
any error on a material point of law and is not set aside.
Representation: The father represented himself.
Sarah Brewis of counsel represented South
Tyneside Council.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This is an appeal by the father of a boy, AR, who was aged twelve at the
date of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision under challenge in these
proceedings. At that time AR had a diagnosis of autistic spectrum
disorder, low oxygen levels, asthma, anaemia, Mannan binding lectin
deficiency and hay fever in the summer, as well, perhaps, as enuresis.
HN –v- South Tyneside Council (SEN) [2019] UKUT 380 (AAC)
HS/1654/2018
2
The decision was made by the First-tier Tribunal on 11 April 2018 (‘the
tribunal’) and it was a decision to strike out the father’s appeal to the
tribunal on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
That decision was made under rule 8(4)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber)
Rules 2008 (“the HESC Rules”).
2. Prior to striking out the appeal the tribunal judge, Judge Brayne, as he
was required to do under rule 8(5) of the HESC Rules, had made an
order on 27 March 2018 explaining why he considered the appeal had
no reasonable prospect of succeeding and seeking representations from
the father as to why the proposed appeal did have reasonable prospects
of success and so should not be struck out. The material parts of the
Judge’ Brayne’s order of 27 March 2018 read as follows:
“I have……concluded that, on the only outstanding issue between the
parties, the appeal has no reasonable prospect of succeeding and
should be struck out under Rule 8(4)(c).
In the working document the only issue in dispute is the parents’ wish
that in section E the following wording should replace the wording
currently proposed for liaison with the school: “Parents require at least
two face to face meetings per term with a teacher who teaches [AR] on
a regular basis”.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to section E of an EHC
Plan, but can make amendments to section F, educational provision. I
therefore approach the issues on the basis that the parents want this
wording inserted into Section F.
There are two reasons for identifying this proposed amendment as
having no reasonable prospects of being ordered. The first is that such
liaison is not educational provision; the means by which a school
liaises with parents will vary according to the circumstances and is
ultimately a management issue for the school, not an educational need
for which an EHC Plan can make provision….…The second reason is
that, even if such liaison was capable of being seen as a special
educational need there is no evidence that [AR]’s needs, as set out in
the agreed content of Section B of his Plan, require special provision to
be specified in relation to such liaison. There is no other evidence
which demonstrates that this amendment is needed to meet [AR]’s
special educational needs, over and above such mechanisms for liaison
which the school named in section I must normally arrange for liaising
with parents.”
To continue reading
Request your trial