Equalities Act - dependent SEN appeal dismissed
On 11 May 2022, the Upper Tribunal returned its decision on an appeal which concerned the interface between special educational needs (SEN) provision under the Children and Families Act 2014 and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
To plead the EQA 2010, or not to plead the EQA 2010 — that was the question. The Upper Appeal Tribunal considers the interplay between the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Equality Act 2010.
On 11 May 2022, the Upper Tribunal returned its decision on an appeal which concerned the interface between special educational needs (SEN) provision under the Children and Families Act 2014 and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Andrew Cullen, who is a Barrister at Browne Jacobson, represented the Respondent. After hearing submissions from both parties, Upper Appeal Tribunal Judge Rowley dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the provisions of the Children and Families Act 2014 (“the CFA”) and provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EQA”) were inextricably linked.
The Appellant placed reliance upon several paragraphs of the SEND code of practice to support this proposition. In particular, the Appellant pointed to the fact that the CFA itself required users to turn to the EQA to interpret the meaning of “disability”, a term which is used throughout Part 3 of the CFA.
A dual duty
The Appellant’s chief submission was that where a child is disabled, a dual duty may arise. First, there may be a duty to make special educational provision for that child; second, there will be a duty not to discriminate against, harass, or victimise the child and a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The Appellant sought to utilise paragraph 1.35 of the SEND code of practice to demonstrate that when special education provision is reviewed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should also consider the reasonable adjustments and access arrangements required for the same child or young person under the EQA.
Distinct regimes which deal with distinct issues
In counterpoint, the Respondent argued that the CFA and the EQA should not be blended to form hybrid actions: those provisions are distinct regimes which deal with distinct issues.
It was further submitted by the Respondent that if Parliament had intended for SEN appeals to deal with EQA matters, such as discrimination allegations, then provision would have been made within the CFA or the SEND Regulations 2014.
As regards to the applicability of the SEND code of practice, the Respondent argued that the code did not explicitly, or implicitly, provide the First Tier Tribunal with powers to make determinations under the EQA.
Claims are routinely brought against schools, not local authorities
It was also noted by the Respondent that EQA claims are routinely brought against schools, not local authorities; if the Appellant’s contention was correct, there would be instances where appellants would be required to bring two respondents into proceedings, which would inevitably complicate already complex hearings.
Upper Appeal Tribunal Judge Rowley accepted that there was a degree of interplay between the two regimes. However, the Learned Judge accepted the Respondent’s submissions that the two regimes were entirely distinct and that the Appellant had not advanced a persuasive or impressive argument as to why the EQA ought to be imported into SEN appeals brought under the CFA.
The Learned Judge was equally not persuaded by the Appellant’s contention that the SEND code of practice endorsed the proposition that SEN appeals could incorporate EQA arguments; on this issue, the Learned Judge preferred the Respondent’s submissions on the correct interpretation of paragraph 1.35 of the SEND code of practice.
A welcome decision
This decision will be a welcome one for local authorities and schools. Had the Appellant been successful in this appeal, appellants and claimants would have been straining upon the start to seek to utilise EQA arguments into SEN appeals, and conversely SEN appeal arguments in EQA claims.
To this, we can also say that hearings under both regimes would have been made considerably more complex, with multiple respondents, multiple hearing days, and multiple issues for the Tribunal to determine. When appellants come to submit their appeals under the Children and Families Act 2014, this decision provides a salutary reminder that they should not plead EQA arguments.
Contact

Andrew Cullen
Barrister (Associate)
andrew.cullen@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2176
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
In Person Event
MAT Development roadshows
In Person Event
MAT Governance Conference
Legal Update
Changes to the SEND and Alternative Provision framework
Article
New report highlights risk of sidelining ED&I in school trusts
Legal Update
New guidance: understanding academy trusts
Legal Update
be prepared for the 2022-23 academic year
Online Event
Wellbeing and financial considerations – practical solutions for challenging times
Online Event
Spring Regional HR Forum
Legal Update
be connected - Spring 2023
Legal Update
Teacher strikes – lessons learnt so far
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Legal Update
New support launched to manage school complaints
Legal Update
Cyber security and data breaches
Legal Update
#EdCon2023 virtual event hailed a success
Online Event
Flexible working in schools webinar
Legal Update
What does the new Provider Access Legislation mean for schools?
Legal Update
High Court dismisses Welsh RSE right to withdraw claim
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
On-Demand
Industrial action essentials: what you need to know
Legal Update
Education Software Solutions Limited breaks against the CMA’s intervention: A victory for freedom and flexibility in contracting for MIS services
Legal Update
Safeguarding at scale report published
Legal Update
Trade unions announce plans to re-ballot members
Legal Update
Widespread industrial action now confirmed for schools
Legal Update
Industrial action and minimum service levels within education
Opinion
Consultation on holiday entitlement – part-year and irregular workers
Guide
FAQs - converting to academy status
Guide
FAQs - becoming a sponsored academy
Guide
FAQs - becoming an academy sponsor
Guide
FAQs – single academy joining a MAT
Legal Update
EdCon2023 launch: Thursday 12 January
Legal Update
The importance of understanding the transitional provisions under the Electronic Communications Code
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
Legal Update
Discrimination comes of age
Guide
#EdCon2023: Access a range of expert guidance and resources at our FREE virtual conference
Legal Update
Teacher Pay Survey 2022
Legal Update
be connected newsletter for schools - Winter 2022
Guide
Good governance essential to avoid falling foul of the ESFA
There’s been little evidence of interventions or financial management reviews this year and it appears the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has re-focussed on financial delivery. It’s also telling that there were no discernible changes to the reporting of financial irregularities in the Academies Trust Handbook 2022.
Legal Update
Children's commissioner recommendations for SEND reform
The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel De Souza, has recently published a report “Beyond the labels: a SEND system which works for every child, every time”, which she intends to sit alongside the DfE’s SEND Review (2019) and SEND Green Paper (2022) and which she hopes will put children’s voices at the heart of the government’s review of SEND system.
Legal Update
School complaint management - exploring a new way forward
There’s greater opportunity than ever for parents, carers and guardians to voice any concerns they have relating to their child’s education and for their concerns to be heard and to be taken seriously. While most staff in schools and academies are conscious of their legal duties relating to complaints management, many are struggling to cope with such a significant increase in the volume of complaints they must manage.