R v The Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte E [1992] 1 FLR 377 CA: Statements (now EHC plans) must not be vaguely worded. Additionally, the LA must include special educational provision (in what is now Section F) for each and every special educational need identified.

EC v North East Lincolnshire LA (HS) [2015] UKUT 0648 (AAC) [2016] ELR 109: The First-tier Tribunal should not ‘rubber stamp’ an inadequately vague Statement or EHC plan.

Worcestershire County Council v SE [2020] UKUT 217 (AAC): Which confirmed that the appropriate and necessary level of specificity and detail in an EHC plan will depend on all the individual facts in a case.

London Borough of Redbridge v HO (SEN) [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC): Which confirmed that where detail can reasonably be provided in an EHC plan, it should be. Even where there is need for flexibility (to meet the child or young person’s needs) in an EHC plan, the duty remains on LAs to specify.