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).

Devon County Council v OH [2016] UKUT 292: While a local authority needs to considerhelping 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 in a nursery, school or college (EOTIS, sometimes known as EOTAS).

JI and SP v Hertfordshire County Council (SEN) [2020] UKUT 200 (AAC): This case confirms a school must be able to provide all of the special educational provision set out in a child or young person’s EHC plan in order to be ‘appropriate’ for them. It also confirms special educational provision to be delivered in a unit/specially resourced provision should be described in section F of an EHC plan.

LL and MM v Telford and Wrekin Council (SEN): [2026] UKUT 129 (AAC): This case was about whether reference could be made to a hub (which was a part of a special school but based within a mainstream school) in both Section F and Section I of an education, health and care (EHC) plan. The Upper Tribunal decided that:

  1. Parties can agree to include the name of a hub in Section I (using closed brackets after the name of the school/other institution) - and where this agreement happens, the SEND Tribunal  can order the agreed wording into Section I. It can do this under  Regulation 43 of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (The SEND Regulations 2014).
  2. Even if the parties don’t agree, the SEND Tribunal can still (under SEND Regulation 43) order the name of a hub to be included in this way as something called a “consequential amendment”. It may decide to do this if the EHC plan would be deficient without doing so.
  3. The name of a hub (and possibly even providers of other sorts of special educational provision) can be included in Section F, where that is needed to make sure the provision reasonably required is specific enough.
  4. The SEND Tribunal can also order it in for this reason.

London Borough of Hillingdon v AP and SP [2024] UKUT 388 (AAC): Local authorities (LAs) have duties to help the SEND Tribunal deal with appeals justly and fairly. This includes avoiding delay, cooperating, and placing all of their cards on the table. LAs need to properly prepare, this may involve raising points or options with the SEND Tribunal during the appeal rather than trying to introduce alternatives to the SEND Tribunal naming the parent’s choice of school after it’s made its decision to argue that it should have decided differently.

MA v Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (SEN) [2015] UKUT 186 (AAC): Various factors need to be considered when deciding if a special educational needs unit is part of the mainstream school where it is located or a separate school in its own right. If it is part of a mainstream school, it will count as a mainstream placement and the school would be named in section I of the EHC plan.

PS v LB of Wandsworth (SEN): [2025] UKUT 239 (AAC): This case reminds us that if a parent’s conditional right to a section 38(3) CFA school can be dislodged under section 39(4) CFA 2014 on appeal, and neither party asks the SEND Tribunal to consider an alternative school, then the SEND Tribunal will name an appropriate type of placement. This does not mean that afterwards an LA can simply agree to remove the name of a child on the roll of their special school without consulting with their parents as a result. It also reminds us that:

  • if parents or young people are concerned that the setting they want named may not be, and/or they feel strongly opposed to the placement proposed by the LA, they should put forward an alternative setting for the SEND Tribunal to consider naming
  • when the SEND Tribunal makes decisions, it can do so on the reasonable expectation that the LA will comply with its legal duties, and
  • we must all take care when using AI-generated content, as this is not always reliable.

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 section 38(3) Children and Families Act 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.

TB v Essex CC [2013] UKUT 534 (AAC) [2014] ELR 46: This case concerned whether a specific setting referred to as a “unit” was in fact a “school”.

TM and SM v Liverpool City Council [2024] UKUT 201 (AAC): This case confirms that a local authority or SEND Tribunal (on appeal) must take into account how a child or young person feels about a placement when deciding whether a particular nursery, school or college is appropriate. Children and young people may potentially have strong and upsetting feelings about attending a particular nursey, school or college, yet their views, wishes and feelings are important. These should be identified early on and gathered in a sensitive way with the welfare of the child or young person a priority.

Published:

Updated:

Author: Emma Brock

Share this page