MT v Governing Body of a School (SEN): [2026] UKUT 42 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 27 January 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The appellant brought claims of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) in respect of the respondent’s decision to move her son (C) from one school site to another. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the appellant’s claims. The Upper Tribunal (UT) holds:-
-
When deciding whether or not to admit late evidence, the FTT must consider the overriding objective in rule 2 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2699) (the FTT Rules) and follow the principles in Denton v T H White Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926 (Denton) to: (i) identify and assess the seriousness of the failure to comply; (ii) consider why the default occurred; and, (iii) evaluate all the circumstances of the case to enable the Tribunal to deal justly with the application. The absence of a good reason for the evidence being late does not mean that the evidence should not be admitted, that is just one relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider. In this case, the FTT had in substance applied the correct legal principles when deciding not to admit the appellant’s late evidence so there was no material error of law in that part of its decision.
-
The appellant had sought permission to rely in support of her late evidence application on medical evidence that she was only willing to share with the Tribunal and not the respondent. The FTT erred in law by failing to raise with the parties, and apply, the principles in rule 14 of the FTT Rules (and the parties’ rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights). The Tribunal should first have considered the medical evidence itself as permitted by rule 14(3) and should have invited the parties to make submissions on whether a direction should be made under rule 14(2) (which permits the Tribunal to direct that a document or information be withheld from the other party where disclosure would be likely to cause “serious harm” and the Tribunal is “satisfied, having regard to the interests of justice, that it is proportionate to give such a direction”). The Tribunal’s failure to adopt this approach materially affected the fairness of the FTT hearing.
-
The FTT failed to take account of relevant medical evidence concerning C on which the appellant relied in relation to the EA 2010 claims, and/or failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting it. This was a material error that undermined its conclusion on the section 15 disability discrimination claim.
-
The FTT wrongly held that it did not have jurisdiction under the EA 2010 to consider issues as to educational provision that could also be the subject of an appeal under the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) in relation to the contents of an EHC Plan. The FTT failed to apply the guidance in SS v Proprietor of an Independent School [2024] UKUT 29 (AAC) at [77].
-
The FTT also wrongly failed to consider the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments by provision of additional support staff as a claim of failure to comply with the “third requirement” in section 20(5) of the EA 2010 rather than as a failure to comply with the “first requirement” in section 20(3) and had therefore wrongly dismissed that claim on the basis that the claimant had been unable to identify a relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP). The Upper Tribunal explains, by reference to Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 185, the First-tier Tribunal’s obligations in respect of identifying and determining claims that are raised in the application notice, and when the Tribunal may need to depart from the list of issues drawn up at the case management stage.
The decision of the FTT is set aside and the case remitted for re-hearing by a fresh Tribunal.