EHCP Compass · Case law
Recent decisions from the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal that strengthen your position when challenging a Local Authority — in plain English, with practical takeaways.
Last updated:
When a Court or Tribunal decides a SEND case, the reasoning becomes binding on future cases. It can shift the law in your favour without any Act of Parliament. Three recent decisions from 2025–2026 are particularly useful for SEND parents.
Case 1 of 3
Your EHCP doesn't end just because your family moves abroad temporarily
A Royal Navy family on temporary deployment to Dubai. Hampshire County Council tried to cease the child's EHCP, arguing the family was no longer in their area.
The LA was wrong. "Ordinary residence" — the legal test for which LA is responsible — is not lost simply because a family is temporarily abroad. The LA can pause the IMPLEMENTATION of provision during the absence, but cannot END the plan.
Practical takeaway
If your family is temporarily abroad, your child's EHCP remains in force. The LA can pause delivering provision, but it cannot end the plan.
Decision date: January 2026 (Court of Appeal). Upheld an earlier Upper Tribunal decision.
Case 2 of 3
Every item of Section F provision must link back to a Section B need
A dispute over whether golf coaching and gym training could be included as Section F provision.
Section F provision must have a "necessary nexus" with the special educational needs set out in Section B. Provision that targets a child's strengths rather than identified needs is an error of law.
Practical takeaway
Check every item in Section F against Section B. If there is no clear link, that provision may be challengeable — and if you are requesting provision, spell out the nexus explicitly.
Decision date: 26 January 2026 (Upper Tribunal, Judge Citron)
Case 3 of 3
Therapy in Section F vs Section G — the difference matters
The parents argued that occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy should be in Section F (educational provision) rather than Section G (health provision).
Tribunals can move provision from Section G to Section F where it "educates or trains" the child. The test is whether the provision is closely connected to the delivery of education.
Practical takeaway
When appealing your child's EHCP, argue that therapies which directly support learning belong in Section F.
Decision date: Late 2025 (Upper Tribunal, Judge Jacobs)
You don't need to be a lawyer to use case law in a SEND dispute. The phrases that matter are:
Drop these citations in letters to your council, in your tribunal Working Document, and in your Stage 1 / Stage 2 complaints.
Last verified: 29 June 2026. Case citations and rulings verified against gov.uk Upper Tribunal Decisions. This is information, not legal advice — for case-specific guidance please contact IPSEA or a SEND solicitor.
