GNY v Hammersmith and Fulham Council (Tribunal procedure and practice - fair hearing) [2026] UKUT 242 (AAC) (26 June 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error of law in this Education, Health and Care Plan appeal. It rejected the argument that the Equal Treatment Bench Book is law or that the tribunal was required to mention or apply it expressly, while also noting that the wrong surname used for HNY throughout the decision was not a legal error because the tribunal had not confused the case with another.

Key points

• Parties: GNY appealed against Hammersmith and Fulham Council concerning an Education, Health and Care Plan.
• Holding: no error of law under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; the First-tier Tribunal decision stood.
• Reasoning: the Equal Treatment Bench Book is not law; it is a resource to help tribunals communicate and assess evidence fairly.
• Reasoning: fairness must be understood through the tribunal’s overriding objective and the parties’ duty to co-operate, including where a representative is involved.
• Reasoning: the tribunal’s incorrect use of HNY’s surname was unsatisfactory but not material because the reasons showed it was dealing with the correct case.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no direct sanctions, export-control, or national-security issue is addressed; the case is procedural and fairness-focused only.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to regulated-risk litigation because it limits attempts to convert judicial guidance materials into freestanding legal duties and reinforces a materiality threshold for procedural complaints. For sanctions or national-security practitioners, it is only indirectly relevant as a reminder that appellate challenges must identify a legally material fairness defect, not mere departure from best-practice guidance.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, parties should frame tribunal challenges around concrete, material procedural unfairness or legal error rather than noncompliance with the Equal Treatment Bench Book. Misnaming or other procedural imperfections will not on their own justify setting aside a decision unless they caused material unfairness or a risk of a different outcome.