London Borough of Redbridge v H O (SEN): [2020] UKUT 323 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Lane on 19 November 2020.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 18 January 2021

• Categories: Special educational needs, Tribunal procedure and practice
• Sub-categories: Special educational needs - special educational provision - other, Tribunal procedure and practice - statements of reasons
• Judges: Lane, S
• Decision date: 19 November 2020

Read the full decision in HS/217/2020.

Judicial Summary

This was a Local Authority appeal dealing with the level of specificity to be included in an Education Health and Care Plan. The provision in dispute was ‘[The pupil] requires extracurricular support for one hour a week at home from a trusted and familiar psychologist.’ Following on from Judge West in Worcestershire CC v SE [2020] UKUT 217 AAC, I attempt to explain, having regard to previous case law, what ‘enough’ detail entails in Education Health and Care Plans and when ‘enough is enough’.

Published 18 January 2021