BZP & Anor v Warwickshire County Council (Tribunal practice and procedure - tribunal jurisdiction; Special educational needs - special educational provision - other) [2026] UKUT 113 (AAC) (09 March 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal considered an appeal concerning an Education, Health and Care Plan for a child, focusing on whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law on two issues: an adult:pupil ratio in a small class and inclusion of psychotherapy as special educational provision. It held that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error of law on either issue and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also addressed its own jurisdiction after a partial review by the First-tier Tribunal, treating the remaining part of the decision as appealable to the Upper Tribunal.

Key points

• Parties: BZP and BZQ appealed against Warwickshire County Council over their daughter BZR’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
• Holding: no error of law under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 on either appealed issue.
• Reasoning: the tribunal accepted a flexible wording requiring a small class with an adult:pupil ratio sufficient for high direct teacher input, rather than a fixed 1:5 ratio.
• Reasoning: the psychotherapy provision was not included because there was insufficient appropriate evidence, and the Upper Tribunal could not take fresh evidence.
• Procedure: the First-tier Tribunal had reviewed part of its decision, and the Upper Tribunal treated the unrevised part as within section 11 appeal jurisdiction.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: the judgment is unrelated to sanctions, export controls, or national security, but it does include the standard contempt warning and penalty notice for breaching anonymity orders.

Why it matters

This decision is not a sanctions or export-control case, so its geopolitical relevance is limited. Its main significance for risk teams is procedural: it confirms how partial review and appeal jurisdiction can operate in tribunal litigation, which can matter where sensitive identities or restricted information must be protected.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case shows that parties challenging tribunal decisions should be prepared to prove legal error, not merely dispute educational judgment, and that fresh evidence may not be available on appeal. It also reinforces the importance of precise, evidence-backed drafting in plans and the practical value of anonymity orders and contempt sanctions where vulnerable individuals are involved.