Education Law Solicitor Michael Charles comments on recent case

I remember a few months ago a local authority lawyer representative argued that the tribunal had no power to order amendments to the outcomes section in Part E of an Education and Health Care Plan. I was perplexed by the argument and raised immediately why this was being argued when the Children and Families Act and associated regulations appeared clear. At least to me.

Subsequent to this, I raised the question in correspondence. Upon what basis was the local authority pursuing such an argument? It did not reply or elaborate.

I was pleased that the Upper Tribunal dealt with the problem recently in the case of P v Worcestershire Council. The tribunal found that regulation 43 (2)(F) of the 2014 Regulation clearly allowed for “consequential amendments” going on to state that it was be “absurd” if a tribunal with powers to make amendments to part F etc could not amend outcomes.

Common sense. I agree.

Michael Charles
Education Law Solicitor and
CEO Sinclairslaw

Contact Us
Facebook
Facebook
Google+
Google+
https://www.sinclairslaw.co.uk/news/education-law-solicitor-michael-charles-comments-on-recent-case
Share
YouTube
YouTube
LinkedIn