3PB issues new commentary on SEN provision, EHC Plans and the meaning of ‘necessary’
12th March 2020
Education and public law barrister Matthew Wyard and Paul Wyard of Sinclairslaw review Nottinghamshire CC v SF and another, a case in which the Court of Appeal held that the First-Tier Tribunal 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 a child in accordance with an EHC Plan – even though the school had identified and made provisions for the child’s needs and the child was making progress at school.
Matthew WyardMatthew WyardCall: 2014 has practised in the field of education law for 8 years and is happy to represent any party in educational disputes. He is currently writing for the forthcoming, inaugural edition of the new Education Law Handbook and, has previously been published in The Times Higher Education, the Education Law Monitor and the Solicitors Journal.
Paul Wyard is a Paralegal in Sinclairslaw’s Education department.