A v Essex County Council: SC 14 Jul 2010

The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had been set in the Lord Grey School case, and the question was ‘whether A was denied effective access to such educational facilities as the State provides for such pupils. A was only denied effective access if he was deprived of the very essence of the right.’ Considerable efforts and money had been provided to attempt to provide interim solutions pending a longer term solution becoming available, and ‘The interim efforts made by Essex were far from perfect and it is arguable that Essex were both in breach of duty under domestic law in various ways and more generally open to criticism for not doing more than they did but, once one takes account of the fact that what was needed were interim measures pending the long term solution, I do not think that A can succeed at a trial.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKSC 33, [2010] WLR (D) 184, UKSC 2009/0065, [2010] 4 All ER 199, [2010] PTSR 1332, [2010] 3 WLR 509, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 314
Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, Bailii Summary
Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights A2P1
England and Wales
At First InstanceA J S B v Essex County Council and others QBD 13-Jul-2007
The defendant local authorities sought summary judgment against the claims brought by the claimants who said that their exclusions from schools infringed their human rights. Each claimant was subject to a special educational needs statement.
Appeal fromA v Essex County Council CA 16-Apr-2008
The claimants had been excluded from school in ways which they said infringed their human rights. They now appealed against a striking out of their claims given on the ground that the claim had no prospect of success. The claimants also needed . .
CitedLeyla Sahin v Turkey ECHR 10-Nov-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant, a muslim woman complained that she had not been allowed to attend lectures wearing a headscarf.
Held: Any limitations on the right to an education must not curtail it ‘to such an extent as to impair its very . .
CitedAli v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School HL 22-Mar-2006
The claimant had been accused with others of arson to school property. He was suspended for the maximum forty five day period. The school then invited the family to discuss arrangements to return to the school, but the family did not attend. After . .
CitedOrsus And Others v Croatia ECHR 16-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) Fifteen Croatians of Roma origin complained that they were victims of racial discrimination in that they were segregated into Roma-only classes and consequently suffered educational, psychological and emotional damage.
Held: . .
CitedRelating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
CitedMursel Eren v Turkey ECHR 7-Feb-2006
The annulment of a student’s examination results, which resulted in his being denied access to university, was held to violate A2P1. . .
CitedCyprus v Turkey ECHR 10-May-2001
Hudoc (Grand Chamber) Missing persons: No violation of Art. 2, Art. 4; Violation of Arts. 2 and 5 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 5 with regard to alleged detention; Not . .
CitedStott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
CitedHolub and another v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 20-Dec-2000
The claimants appealed against a refusal of their request for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to grant them exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. If returned to Poland the daughter of the family would face . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.421094