Gilliatt The court heard three separate appeals from decisions of SENTs where parents wished their autistic children to attend the Boston Higashi School, USA which involved a residential placement. Fees to attend this establishment exceeded andpound;50,000 a year. The court held that there was no duty on the LEA or the SENT under the Education Act 1996 to name a particular school in a statement, though there was a power to do so. The SENT was in fact prohibited by 3 324 of the EA 1996 from naming a school unless a parent expressed a preference for it or it had been proposed by the parent or authority or both. The third appeal involved the issue of funding a place at Higashi when the parents had already sent their child there having raised private finance to cover two terms’ attendance. They were not likely to be able to afford to pay in future. The court held that the SENT had no power to order the LEA to pay the fees for the child to remain at the school in future. The LEA’s argument was that under s 324 of the Education Act 1996 it was not obliged to arrange for a child’s special educational needs to be met if a parent had already made suitable arrangements. The court held that arrangements could not be suitable if funding was not secure and the LEA was therefore in breach of its duty to arrange education provision and of its duty to pay for that provision in accordance with s 517(4) and (5) If the EA 1996. Leave to appeal was granted in all three cases.
Judges:
Mr Justice Dyson
Citations:
[1997] EWHC Admin 651
Links:
Citing:
Appealed to – White and Another v Ealing London Borough Council and Another etc CA 1-Aug-1997
There is no duty to name a school in a special needs statement, but the education authority must pay for the school where one is named. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child) Admn 20-Oct-2000
The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to . .
Appeal from – White and Another v Ealing London Borough Council and Another etc CA 1-Aug-1997
There is no duty to name a school in a special needs statement, but the education authority must pay for the school where one is named. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137596