Educational provision required out of school hours was not specified by the SEND Tribunal. In setting aside the SEND Tribunal's Decision, the High Court held that the package of educational provision must be specified in HW & W v Bedfordshire County Council and another 2004 EWHC 560 (Admin) 2004 ELR 586. the Send Tribunal decision was set aside when the out of hours "package of care" was not specified by the SEND Tribunal.

J v Staffordshire County Council and Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal 2005 EWHC 1664 (Admin) 2006 ELR 141. Evidence held to have been wrongly admitted to the SEND Tribunal. Despite having held that the evidence had been erroneously admitted, relief was refused by the Court, one of the most relevant factors was that the advocate on the day did not apply for an adjournment to consider the material.

JR & AR v Hampshire County Council and SEND Tribunal 2006 EWHC 588 (Admin) 2006 ELR 335. The Tribunal held that the child should be educated in good acoustic conditions, was not satisfied that the LEA's placement could provide good acoustic conditions but nevertheless proceeded to name it.

Similarly in Jones v Norfolk CC and another 2006 ELR 547 in which Crane J dealt with the Tribunal decision which failed to deal with the opinions and reasoning of the experts:
" What the Tribunal wholly failed to do was to refer to the opinions and reasoning of Mrs Sharkey, Mrs Page and Dr Male on the issue of whether a special school was required. It would be difficult to tell from the decision that those 3 experts had given any evidence at all on that issue".

Finally in JF v London Borough of Croydon and Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal 31 August 2006 EWHC 2368 (Admin) CO/2705/2006. In setting aside the SEND Tribunal Decision, Mr Justice Sullivan para 11 commented:

"I find the first defendant's attitude in this case very troubling indeed. He betrays a complete failure to understand the role of the Local Education Authority in Hearings before the Tribunal. Athought the proceedings are in part adversarial because the Local Education Authority will be responding to the parent's Appeal, the role of an Education Authority as a public body at such a Hearing is to assist the Tribunal in making all relevant information available. Its role is not to provide only so much information as to assist its own case. At the Hearing the Local Education Authority should be placing all of its cards on the table including those which might assist the parent's case. It is not an adequate answer to a failure to disclose information to the Tribunal for a Local Education Authority to say that the parent could have unearthed the information for themselves if they had dug deep enough."

And Para 13

"Whether the first defendants failure to give this information to the Tribunal was deliberate or an oversight is of no consequence for the present purposes. What is of great concern is the first defendant's initial response as set out above, once the true position emerged in the evidence obtained by the Appellants. One would have hoped any Education Authority confronted by such information would have been most concerned that the Tribunal might have been muddled even if wholly inadvertently by its evidence. I say the first defendant's initial response because after taking instructions, Mr Dunlop very properly, if very belatedly, conceded the fact that the school was registered with the Department as a school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and they further fact that the school was not registered with the Society in the sense of being any way approved or endorsed by the society should have been disclosed to the Tribunal. However, despite those concessions, the first defendant continued to maintain that the decision should be quashed."