Issuing an EHC Plan—the meaning of ‘necessary’ (Nottinghamshire County Council v SF and another)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of that decision?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal held that the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) had correctly construed the meaning of ‘necessary’ in section 37(1) of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) in finding that it was necessary for special educational provision to be made for HD in accordance with an EHC Plan. This was despite his school having identified his needs, made provision to meet those needs and HD making progress at school. The court considered and affirmed the approach to making a determination under CFA 2014, s 37, determining what is ‘necessary’ requires an evaluative judgment based on the facts of each case. Written by Matthew Wyard, barrister, at 3PB Barristers and Paul Wyard, paralegal, at Sinclairslaw.