How will the introduction of the new Practice Direction for SEND and Disability Discrimination Tribunal hearings, effective 15 July 2025, impact you?

On 22 April 2025, the Senior President of Tribunals issued a new Practice Direction concerning the preparation of hearing bundles in the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) and Disability Discrimination (DD) jurisdictions of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber). This directive, effective for all final hearings listed on or after 15 July 2025, aims to standardise and streamline the documentation process in these cases.​

Special Needs Jungle+6Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+6Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+6

Enable Law+4Birkett Long+4Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+4

Key Provisions of the Practice Direction:

• Responsibility for Bundle Preparation: The local authority or responsible body is tasked with preparing the hearing bundle. Non-compliance, without a valid explanation, may lead to the bundle’s rejection by HMCTS, a judge, or a legal officer. ​GOV.UK+5 Birkett Long+5Local Government Lawyer+5
• Local Government Lawyer+1Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+1
• Page Limits for Documents:
  • SEND Appeals:
    • Core bundle: 100 pages.
    • Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and Section K appendices: 150 pages.
    • Working Document: 25 pages.
    • Additional evidence limits vary by appeal type, ranging from 75 to 100 pages per party.
  • Disability Discrimination Claims:
    • Core bundle: 100 pages.
    • Supplementary bundle: 100 pages.
    • Each party’s evidence: up to 200 pages.
• Expert Reports and Witness Statements: Expert reports are limited to 15 pages, including a 2-page executive summary. Witness statements are capped at 10 pages. All documents must be in a font no smaller than 12-point and divided into numbered paragraphs. ​Birkett Long
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to adhere to the Practice Direction may result in the hearing date being vacated at short notice, the case being struck out, or a party being barred from further participation. In certain circumstances, a costs order may also be imposed. ​Local Government Lawyer+2Birkett Long+2Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+2

The full text of the Practice Direction can be accessed on the Judiciary’s official website: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary​GOV.UK Justice+4GOV.UK Justice+4Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+4

For a detailed breakdown of the changes and their implications, Birkett Long has published a comprehensive legal update: Birkett Long​Birkett Long+1GOV.UK Justice+1

This Practice Direction represents a significant shift towards more concise and focused documentation in SEND and DD Tribunal hearings, aiming to enhance efficiency and clarity in the adjudication process.​Local Government Lawyer+2Courts and Tribunals Judiciary+2Birkett Long+2

The Challenge: What might be lost or strained

1. Increased Administrative Burden on Local Authorities

• Emotional and practical strain: Local authorities are now solely responsible for preparing the bundles. For overstretched SEND teams, already under heavy caseload pressures, this adds a significant administrative load. It may divert attention and resources from direct support to families.
• Risk of procedural delays: If bundles are incomplete or incorrectly formatted, hearings could be vacated at short notice, exacerbating the already lengthy wait times for vulnerable children and families seeking urgent support.

2. Restrictive Page Limits Could Exclude Critical Evidence

• Compression of complex cases: SEND cases often involve nuanced educational, medical, and therapeutic reports. Strict page limits (e.g., 100 pages for the core bundle, 15 pages per expert report) may force key evidence to be trimmed or omitted, potentially disadvantaging children with complex needs whose stories and requirements are not easily captured within tight document limits.

3. Additional Pressure on Parents and Carers

• Emotional overwhelm: Parents who are self-representing, many of whom already feel marginalised and overwhelmed, now face even stricter procedural rules. If their submissions exceed limits or don’t meet new standards, they risk being barred from participating fully or having their evidence dismissed. This could amplify feelings of disempowerment and injustice.

4. Increased Legal Complexity

• More barriers for access to justice: While the goal is efficiency, the new technical requirements around formatting (font size, numbered paragraphs, summaries) may privilege those with legal representation and marginalise those without access to legal advice or advocacy.

5. Risk of Harsh Outcomes for Minor Breaches

• Punitive consequences: Non-compliance could result in hearings being vacated, cases being struck out, or parties being barred from further participation, even for relatively minor administrative errors. This introduces a harsh, high-stakes environment into what are already deeply emotional, high-impact cases for families.

 

The system is signalling a desire for clarity and efficiency, but there’s a danger that humanity, flexibility, and context could be sacrificed at the altar of process.

In this moment, it’s crucial that judges and tribunal panels exercise compassionate discretion, understanding that for many, this is not merely a “case”, it’s their child’s future.