Hampshire County Council v R & SENDIST [2009] EWHC 626 (Admin) (2009) ELR 371: if a parent or young person requests a particular school is named in a Statement (now an EHC plan) and the LA argue that it is ‘incompatible with the efficient education of others’, there needs to be a positive finding of incompatibility, not merely by evidence of some impact on those other children.

NA v London Borough of Barnet (SEN) [2010] UKUT 180 (AAC): The Upper Tribunal stated that this was a “strong test of incompatibility”, which means the test is a high threshold for the local authority. The local authority needs to have clear evidence of the difference the admission of that particular extra child or young person will make, and which students will be affected by this.

OO and BO v London Borough Bexley [2023] UKUT 223 (AAC): A school can be named in an EHC plan even if it is full. If the LA does not want to name the setting based on the number of pupils already attending, then the LA will need to show why naming the school will “result in the quality of education provided to those other pupils falling below the threshold standard of “efficient education”. If it cannot, then the setting can and must be named.