C v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and London Borough of Greenwich [1999] ELR 5: The setting named in Part 4 of a Statement (now Section I of an EHC plan) must be able to make the special educational provision set out in Part 3 (now Section F).

Derbyshire CC v EM and DM (SEN) [2019] UKUT 240 (AAC): Where a child or young person requires fulltime ‘education otherwise than in school’ (EOTAS) at home, the special educational provision should be set out in Section F and Section I should be left blank, as there is no setting to be attended.

Devon County Council v OH [2016] UKUT 292: While a local authority needs to give consideration to helping children and young people with SEN achieve "the best possible outcome in adult life", this does not override other considerations such as appropriateness and cost – they simply have to provide what is ‘reasonably required’.

East Sussex County Council v TW [2016] UKUT 528: Section I of an EHC plan must name a place ‘to be attended’ by a child or young person – therefore it cannot be the child or young person’s home. This has implications for children and young people educated otherwise than at a setting.

R  v  Chair of Governors and Headteacher of A and S school ex parte T [2000] ELR 274: When a parent requests a school (of one of the types set out in s. 38(3) CAFA 2014), the ultimate decision to name the school rests with the home local authority. Even if the school and the local authority in which the school is located object, they can be overruled.

R v Surrey County Council Education Committee ex parte P [1997] ELR 516: An LA is not under a duty to provide the best possible education for a child; all that must be shown is that the school or college can meet the child’s special educational needs.