swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Education - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 29 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Regina (on the application of Dorling) v Sheffield City Council and the Governing Body of Woodthorpe Primary School (1); 2002 - [2002] ELR 367
International Correspondence Schools Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (2002) VAT Decision 17622
2002
VDT
VAT, Education
1 Citers
Regina (on the application of Dorling) v Sheffield City Council (2) [2002] 486
2002
Goldring J
Education, Employment
The teacher had taken early retirement on sickness grounds, but said that he was not obliged to resign and the employer had said that the employment had automatically ended.
1 Citers
Regina (Hounslow London Borough Council) v School Appeal Panel [2002] EWCA Civ 990; [2002] 1 WLR 3147
2002
CA
May LJ
Education, Judicial Review
There was a hearing before the panel relating to admission of children to particular schools. Held: The proceedings had got "bogged down with questions of legality and the possibility of judicial review". Applications for judicial review in the course of an appeal to an appeal panel were to be discouraged.
1 Citers
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council Times, 29 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 7
23 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lady Justice Hale and Sir Denis Henry
Education, Negligence
The claimant sought damages from the school for failing to prevent injuries arising from bullying, which was taking place on the way to and from school, but not at school. Held: A school has no general obligation to prevent such bullying, but special circumstances might apply which could create a liability where reasonable steps available to the school might have prevented it. The judge had directed himself too restrictively, but would have reached the same result if he had been correct. A day school does not control of its pupils once they left its charge: that was the responsibility of parents. As to the steps the school might take, if a reasonable body of professional opinion would not take them, the school was not liable for failing to do so.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design [2002] EWCA Civ 69
24 Jan 2002
CA
Buxton LJ
Education, Administrative
Application for permission to appeal against the decision: "The claimant, Miss Aletta Nash, complains of the second year assessment that she received in her course at the Chelsea College of Art, the respondent. That assessment was made as long ago as May 1998, and was considered by the Board of Examiners of the College in July 1998. Miss Nash complains in substance about the procedure in that extenuating circumstances (that are not necessary to recite) have not been taken into proper account."
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Chawda, Regina (on the Application Of) v University of Portsmouth [2002] EWCA Civ 72
25 Jan 2002
CA
Simon Brown LJ VP
Education, Limitation
[ Bailii ]
Gaisiance, Regina (on the Application of) v McLone and others [2002] EWCA Civ 125
6 Feb 2002
CA
Latham LJ
Education
"application for permission to appeal against a refusal by Turner J to permit the applicant to apply for judicial review. The application for judicial review was directed to the examining board which ran the examinations taken by the applicant in the summer of 2001. Underlying the application is his clear concern that he has not been dealt with fairly in relation to his marks, although the form of the application is somewhat unusual."
[ Bailii ]
H, Regina (on the Application of) v Hertfordshire County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 146
6 Feb 2002
CA
Brooke, Sedley LJJ
Education
[ Bailii ]
Regina (K) v Newham London Borough Council and Another Times, 28 February 2002
19 Feb 2002
QBD
Collins J
Education, Human Rights
Parents applied for secondary school places, indicating three single sex schools. This was from a clear religious conviction. The local authority allocated another place, without giving reasons, but did provide a pamphlet setting out its policy, which showed that one criterion was a preference for a single-sex school. Held: The need to respect religious views was enshrined in the Convention. Some positive action was required by the state to accord with that right. No such action had been taken by the authority and the decision allocating the child to the school was set aside.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 86(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 1 Art 2
1 Cites
Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another Times, 16 May 2002
13 Mar 2002
QBD
Justice Mitchell
Education, Judicial Review
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the independent appeal panel. Held: Such a decision was of great importance to the child, and it was necessary that the procedure adopted should be fair. Those sitting on the discipline committee served a statutory function, and must fulfil their duties with care and independence. The availability of judicial review would serve to emphasise that duty. There would be no flood of cases because of the tests in Rowlands. Here, however, the defects in the consideration by the committee had been cured by the procedure adopted by the independent appeal panel, and the review was refused.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Liennard v Slough Borough Council; QBD 15-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWHC 398 (QB); HQ 9902793
Ipsea Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Education and Schools [2002] EWHC 504 (Admin)
26 Mar 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Newman
Education, Administrative
IPSEA (a national charity active in supporting children with special educational needs) applied for judicial review in relation to the status of non-statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State in a document called the 'SEN Toolkit'. The court refused to grant a judicial review but gave useful guidance on how the guidance in the toolkit might be amended and clarified and the context in which it should be viewed i.e. as secondary to the statutes and statutory codes.
[ Bailii ]
Tina Yasmin Flemming v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 641; [2002] 1 WLR 2322
10 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick, Pill LJ, Longmore LJ
Benefits, Education
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 70(3) - Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Regulations 1976 5
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (S) v Brent London Borough Council and Others Regina (T) v Brent and Others Regina (P) v Oxfordshire County Council's Exclusion Appeals Panel and Another Times, 04 June 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 693; [2002] ELR 556
17 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Charles
Education
Three pupils appealed their exclusion from school for violent or threatening behaviour. Held: The statute imposed clear obligations on the appeal panel to act independently, and to consider both the individual circumstances of the child and the case, and to bear in mind the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In addition the panel had to act fairly in accordance with the convention rights to a fair trial. The guidance however was not more than guidance, and the panel must exercise their discretion. Appeals dismissed.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 67 68
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Boulton and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee [2002] EWCA Civ 884
20 Jun 2002
CA
Sedley LJ Arden LJ
Education
Gilliatt There is nothing to prevent a pupil as well as a parent from being heard by a School Organisation Committee, but it was for the SOC to decide whether to hear oral objections or not. Leave to apply for judicial review granted.
[ Bailii ]
Hounslow London Borough Council v School Admission Appeals Panel for Hounslow London Borough Council Gazette, 21 August 2002; Times, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 900
25 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Kennedy, May and Tuckey
Education
The local authority changed its policy on admissions to secondary schools, so that children living nearer a school were given priority over children with siblings already at the school. The school admissions appeal panel overruled decisions made under the policy, and the authority appealed. Held: The policy was lawful under the Act. The panel's power was to uphold an appeal where the decision was unreasonable or a flawed interpretation of the policy. The panel had no power to undertake any review itself of the policy.
School Standards and Frame-work Act 1998 Sch 24 para 12
[ Bailii ]
Woodbridge School v Chittock Times, 15 July 2002; Gazette, 22 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 915; [2003] PIQR P6
27 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Auld
Personal Injury, Negligence, Education
A child on a school skiing trip, had been injured whilst skiing on-piste, but unsupervised. The school appealed a finding of liability. Held: The teachers and supervisors owed the same duty of care as a reasonably careful parent with some knowledge and understanding of the dangers of skiing. Allowance had to be made for the child's own level of competence and the duties to the rest of the group. There was no duty to ensure his safety against injury from skiing mishaps such as those that might result from his own misjudgment or inadvertence when skiing unsupervised on-piste. The court set out the detailed standard of care owed by a school to its pupils.
Auld LJ said: "Where there are a number of options for the teacher as to the manner in which he might discharge that duty, he is not negligent if he chooses one which, exercising the Bolam test (1957] 1 WLR 582), would be within a reasonable range of options for a reasonable teacher exercising that duty of care in the circumstances."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Evans v University of Cambridge [2002] EWHC 1382 (Admin)
5 Jul 2002
Admn
Scott Baker J
Education, Employment
Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923
[ Bailii ]
T v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Another [2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin)
18 Jul 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Richards
Education, Human Rights
Gilliatt Parents wanted their high end autistic child to be educated according to the Lovaas principle at home with a phased introduction into mainstream school. The local education authority proposed that the child should be educated at a specialist centre based in a school. The court held that under s 319 of the Education Act 1996 the SEN Tribunal only had to decide whether the education provision proposed by the LEA was appropriate. If it was, there was no power for arrangements to be made outside a school, such as the parents preferred. The Tribunal had done as much as it had to in taking into account the views of the parents. At the High Court hearing, the argument had been put for the first time that there was a breach of Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act and that the parents belief in the value of the Lovaas method amounted to a philosophical conviction. The court said that it was too late to run the argument and it should have been put to the SENT but that in any event the parents' beliefs did not amount to a philosophical conviction but only a judgment that one educational method was to be preferred to another.
Education Act 1996 319
[ Bailii ]
T, Regina (on the Application of) v Head Teacher of Elliot School and others; CA 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1349
Wb and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee [2002] EWHC 1927 (Admin)
13 Sep 2002
Admn
Education
[ Bailii ]
B and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee Times, 22 October 2002
13 Sep 2002
QBD
Scott Baker J
Education, Local Government, Legal Aid
The applicants sought through their litigation friends to oppose the decision of the respondent to close their junior school. The respondent said the proceedings were an abuse, having been brought in the children's names solely to obtain legal aid. Held: The Richmond case said that such applications should be made by the parent, not the child, save exceptionally. An application on the basis that the proceedings were an abuse having been brought in the child's name solely in order to obtain public funding of the case would require clear evidence, and no such evidence existed here.
1 Cites
Kearn-Price v Kent County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1539
30 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lady Justice Arden
Negligence, Personal Injury, Education
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence. Held: 'a school owes to all pupils who are lawfully on its premises the general duty to take such measures to care for their health and safety as are reasonable in all the circumstances. It is neither just nor reasonable to say that a school owes no duty of care at all to pupils who are at school before or after school hours.' The governing principle is that the school is required to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. There was a finding by the judge that if the teachers had sought to enforce the ban, the pupils would have taken note. That inference was properly drawn.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Healey v Bridgend County Borough Council; CA 14-Nov-2002 - Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWCA 1996
Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment; CA 12-Dec-2002 - Times, 18 December 2002; [2003] QB 1300; [2002] EWCA Civ 1926; [2003] ELR 176
S, Regina (on the Application of) v YP School [2002] EWHC 2795 (Admin)
13 Dec 2002
Admn
Education
Exclusion
[ Bailii ]
Regina (DR) (AM) v St George's Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another Times, 19 December 2002
13 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Simon Brown
Education, Judicial Review
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school. Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school's head teacher, first to the governors, and then to an independent appeal panel. They argued that Rowlands established that a right to a judicial review of an earlier decision survived a fairly conducted appeal against that decision. Held: The Rowlands case applied only where a possibility of an appeal remained. A closer case was McMahon. The court must look at the statutory scheme as a whole. Where an early defect was capable of being cured by the later appeals, it must be rare (perhaps as in Calvin) for any right of review to survive.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Oxfordshire County Council v C (A Child) [2002] EWHC 2908 (Admin)
17 Dec 2002
Admn
Education
Special Educational Needs
[ Bailii ]
