Case overview

Parents of a child with special educational needs (SEN) appealed (first to the Secretary of State then to the High Court) because their son’s Statement of Special Educational Needs (this was an earlier version of an education, health and care (EHC) plan) did not include special educational provision to meet all of his identified SEN.

Although all of the SEN were set out in part 2 of his Statement (this is now section B of an EHC plan), the local authority (LA) argued some of the needs were not serious enough to require any special educational provision.

After the High Court upheld the parents’ appeal, the Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal, but lost. The Court of Appeal said that part 3 of a Statement (this is now section F of an EHC plan) must contain special educational provision for each and every SEN set out in part 2.

What does this mean?

This case confirms that LAs must specify special educational provision in section F of an EHC plan to meet each and every SEN set out in section B. Whilst Statements have been replaced with EHC plans since this case, the principle remains the same, meaning this case is still relevant.

Paragraph 9.69 of the SEN and Disability Code of Practice specifically refers to the principles in this case. Under Section F it says “Provision must be specified for each and every need specified in Section B”.

No case report is available online.

For more information, you can read our pages  on what an EHC plan should contain.