LB Enfield v NH and another (SEN) (Special educational needs - other)

Tribunal practice and procedure - lack of consistency between order contemplating the possibility of justifying non-compliance or providing for automatic barring - delegation of judicial functions to staff - whether an order in the name of a judge but issued by a clerk without judicial consideration purporting to bar a party from further participation in proceedings has any effect - whether it is a ground for deciding that a school is unsuitable that it could not offer an immediate placement

the order in this case was not truly an automatic barring because of the "reasonable explanation" get out or it did not become one until the explanation had been considered and rejected. The LA was entitled to have its explanation for delay given judicial consideration. In the absence of such, the barring order of 29 May 2018 was invalid (paragraphs 10, 13 to 16);

if contrary to the above the barring order was valid, the F-tT's exercise of its discretion was in error of law because of its failure to consider the limited extent of default to the part of the LA and prejudice to the parents, ensure parties' participation and the need for proper argument of the significant issues at stake (paragraphs 18 to 22);

the F-tT erred in law by concluding that School B was unsuitable. There is no rule of law that a placement must be immediately available at the date of hearing or at the date of decision. (paragraph 23 to 24);

The judge set aside the decision of the F-tT and remitted the appeal for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal. A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2019] UKUT 1 (AAC)