Lachlan Wilson argues for parents before the Upper Tribunal that a powered wheelchair constitutes special educational provision

10th April 2018

East聽Sussex County Council v JC

Lachlan Wilson recently represented the parents of a young man聽with significant mobility impairments before the Upper Tribunal. The dispute related聽to the provision and use of a powered wheelchair. Mr聽Wilson argued for the parents that the wheelchair聽provided as much education and training to their son, 鈥淲鈥�, as a communications聽device; he had to learn how to use the powered wheelchair and exercise聽independent decision making about where and when he wished to go. The wheelchair聽was essential for him to exercise independence of judgment in his movement聽about the college.

Upper Tribunal Judge Levenson pointed out that inanimate聽objects聽can聽be educational or聽training provision 鈥� think of books. He also held that there is no rule聽excluding from consideration as special educational provision that which聽provides access: if聽(and it might be a big if) the use of the powered聽wheelchair educates or trains, as per the statutory test at section 21(5) of聽the Children and Families Act 2014, there is no rule excluding its provision聽from being educational or training provision聽merely because it may also be said to provide "access to education".

Click on the link below to read Lachlan Wilson's analysis of the case - This article was first published on Lexis庐PSL Local Government on 27 April 2018:
The distinction between educational and healthcare provision - East Sussex cc v JC - an analysis by Lachlan Wilson for Lexis Nexis