MB v Hertfordshire County Council [2026] UKUT 86 (AAC)

Case Overview  

An 18-year-old young person with an education, health and care (EHC) plan appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) about a decision made by the SEND Tribunal not to include: 

• a weekly drama/performing arts group  

• a Duke of Edinburgh course 

• gym sessions 

• gym membership 

• a therapeutic gardening course 

• volunteering activities and 

• an independent travel programme 

In Section F of their EHC plan. The young person felt that the SEND Tribunal had not applied the relevant legal test to decide whether the activities were special educational provision, or provided adequate reasons for its decision.  

The UT agreed and said that if the SEND Tribunal needed more information, it should have asked for it or explained why it had chosen not to.  

Correct approach to special educational provision  

The UT said that there were four key questions which the SEND Tribunal should have asked when considering whether to include the activities in Section F: 

1. Is it either educational provision or training provision?  

2. Is it additional to, or different from, the educational or training provision made generally for other 18-year-olds in mainstream post-16 institutions in England?  

3. Is it called for by the special educational needs as set out in Section B?  

4. Is it required by the young person?  

If the answer to all four of these questions was yes, then the activity in question could be included in Section F.  

Importantly, the UT only decided not to send the case back to the SEND Tribunal to re-consider because the EHC plan in question had been replaced by a new EHC plan following annual review. The UT was keen to make it clear that the SEND Tribunal should apply the above approach to special educational provision in future appeals. 

The full decision for MB v Hertfordshire County Council [2026] UKUT 86 (AAC) is available online. 

What does this mean? 

This case confirms: 

• the approach the SEND Tribunal should take when deciding whether any proposed provision is special educational provision which can be included in Section F 

• that activities which take place outside of a traditional classroom setting can potentially amount to special educational provision  

• that the SEND Tribunal must give clear reasons for its decisions about special educational provision 

• that a new amended EHC plan being issued during an appeal can impact the outcome reached.  

For more information, you can see our pages on what an EHC plan should contain and challenging SEND Tribunal decisions and our FAQ 'Our annual review is due, but we're involved in an ongoing appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the EHC plan. How does this effect the process?'.