Category: Education

Siddiqui v University of Oxford: QBD 5 Dec 2016

The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was bound to fail was refused. Nor was the claim bound to fail under limitation difficulties. Application refused

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3150 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice QBD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had failed to provide her with the Legal Practice Course promised. The complaints included, in particular, an attack on the practice of having students mark their own mock examination papers.
Cited – Winstanley v Sleeman and Another QBD 13-Dec-2013
The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The . .
Cited – Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Cited – Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm) HL 25-Apr-2002
An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should . .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 2016
Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford QBD 7-Feb-2018
. .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 16-Mar-2018
Post judgment issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Education, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.572350

HA v University of Wolverhampton and Others: Admn 12 Feb 2018

The court was asked whether a university may lawfully ask an applicant for an accredited Master of Pharmacy degree course (‘MPharm’) whether he or she has spent and unfiltered convictions and whether the university can require him or her to undergo an enhanced criminal record check as part of the application process.
Held: The decision to excude HA was quashed.

Judges:

Julian Knowles J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 144 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.604756

Bromley London Borough Council v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Others: CA 26 May 1999

The needs of a child, as to educational and non-educational overlapped, and accordingly, it was within the discretion of the Special Needs Tribunal to include among the educational needs of a child others within that overlap. Physiological, occupational, and speech therapy, were all properly included within the educational needs assessment. The court explained the nature of the Tribunal’s functions: ‘the first independent arbiter of this question [viz. a question as to the special educational provision to be specified in Part 3 of the statement] is the tribunal. Unlike the High Court, it is a specialist tribunal with a lawyer chairman and lay members chosen for their knowledge and experience.
In my view this restructuring has jurisprudential implications. Where previously the parent’s only resort from the local education authority was to the court, which had therefore to do its best to construe the statutory language in so far as construction was an appropriate exercise, there is now interposed a specialist tribunal whose remit is not necessarily the same. In particular, where a court has to limit itself to the interpretation of terms of legal art and the setting of outer limits to the meaning of ordinary words in their statutory context, the tribunal is empowered to take a much closer look at the LEA’s statement. Indeed, for many purposes it stands in the LEA’s shoes, re-evaluating the available information in order if necessary to recast the statement. But in carrying out this function it also has a supervisory role – to interpret and apply the relevant law. Where that law is expressed in words which, while not terms of legal art, have a purpose dictated by – and therefore a meaning coloured by – their context, it is clearly Parliament’s intention that particular respect should be paid to the tribunal’s conclusions.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1490, [1999] ELR 260

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 Part IV

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of MH v the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, the London Borough of Hounslow CA 25-Jun-2004
The child was subject to a statement of special educational needs. His parents expressed a preference for one mainstream school, but the authority allocated him to another. The court had been requested to give guidance on the meaning and effect of . .
Cited – K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal CA 6-Mar-2007
The child was subject to the school eventually declined to clean and change him. The mother claimed that the school was discriminating.
Held: The mother had understated the frequency of the bowel accidents. The school was not properly equipped . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78671

Wolverhampton City Council v the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal; Sally Smith: Admn 14 May 2007

Whether the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal [SENDIST] have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the Interested Party Sally Smith in respect of the failure by the Appellant, Wolverhampton City Council [LEA] to maintain a statement of Special Educational Needs for Mrs Smith’s son Andrew and to direct the LEA that they should continue to maintain a statement despite his attainment of adulthood.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1117 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.253307

Watts v Monmouthshire County Council and Another: 1968

The Plaintiff, a teacher had had a number of accidents at school and applied for and was granted a short service gratuity from the Ministry of Education being agreed to be permanently incapable of serving efficiently as a teacher of the appropriate kind. The employer did not give him any notice of dismissal.
Held: Under the regulations he had been entitled to three months’ notice. The teacher sued for damages, including damages in that he had not been given pay for the period of notice that would have been applicable had notice of dismissal been given. ‘Having regard to the correspondence, I now come to the question of whether there was frustration of this contract. It is quite clear, in my view, that the mere inability of the Plaintiff to perform his duties by reason of illness or accident does not in itself amount to frustration of the contract. The regulations regarding tenure clearly contemplate that, even if the teacher does become ill or suffers an accident, the contract shall continue in existence in spite of that. But as a matter of common sense it seems to me that an application for and acceptance by the plaintiff of a gratuity on the basis that he had become permanently incapable of serving efficiently as a teacher is wholly inconsistent with the continued existence of a contract by the County Council to employ him as a teacher and by him to serve the County Council as a teacher.’ After drawing attention to the Act, ‘I consider that it is plain that the whole basis of this gratuity is that the teacher has become permanently incapable of serving efficiently as a teacher. In my judgment, it is impossible for the plaintiff at the same time to accept a gratuity on the basis that he is permanently incapable of serving as a teacher and also to continue to serve as such. Having accepted this gratuity, the plaintiff was not, in my view, eligible to return to the service of the County Council. In my view the foundation of the contract was destroyed when the plaintiff accepted the gratuity and the contract then came to an end by frustration. If there is frustration, there is no need for either party to give any notice terminating the date of it. The determination is automatic.’

Judges:

Browne J

Citations:

[1968] 66 LGR 171

Statutes:

Teachers’ (Superannuation) Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Verner, Sheppard, Ridley v Derby City Council, Norfolk County Council, St Thomas More Roman Catholic High School QBD 14-Nov-2003
The question was whether, when a teacher has applied for and accepted ill-health retirement benefit, usually a lump sum and a pension, on the ground of permanent incapacity, there exists a public law duty on his employer to dismiss the employee.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.187972

Playfoot (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Millais School: Admn 16 Jul 2007

The claimant sought to be allowed to wear a purity ring at school. The ring infringed the school’s uniform code. She said that the ring expressed her desire religious to remain pure before marriage.
Held: The wearing of the ring was not sufficiently closely connected with the claimant’s religion or her belief in chastity before marriage. The claim failed.

Judges:

Michael Supperstone QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin), Times 23-Jul-2007, [2007] ELR 484, [2007] BLGR 851, [2007] 3 FCR 754, [2007] ACD 80, [2007] HRLR 34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins-Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls’ High School and Another Admn 29-Jul-2008
Miss Singh challenged her school’s policy which operated to prevent her wearing while at school a steel bangle, a Kara. She said this was part of her religion as a Sikh.
Held: Earlier comparable applications had been made under human rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.258412

GO (Nigeria) and HZ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1 Feb 2008

Application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave – GOO, EO and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Jul-2008
The court asked what are the legal consequences if a foreign student who has obtained leave to enter or remain in order to follow a named course embarks on a different course or fails the course examinations?
Held: There was no objection to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266127

Sampanis and Others v Greece: ECHR 8 Aug 2011

Resolution as to execution of judgment

Citations:

32526/05, [2011] ECHR 1637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – Sampanis v Greece ECHR 5-Jun-2008
The Greek authorities failed to enrol in school a group of Greek children of Roma origin who were receiving no formal education for an entire academic year. Over 50 children were subsequently placed in special classes in a school annex which was . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children, Education

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.445716

Dean and Another v East Sussex County LEA: CA 22 Mar 2005

The applicants’ two children were subject statements of special educational needs. Those statements had been amended by the directionn of the Chairman of the Tribunal. The claimants sought to appeal those statements.
Held: The rules provided no means of appeal against such amendments. However in a proper case, it may be appropriate to allow an application for a review of that decision. This was such a case.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 323, Times 29-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Special educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 (2001 No 600) 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.223805

Jenkins v Howells: KBD 1949

A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the result of ‘any unavoidable cause’ by reference to the Act. The Divisional Court rejected that contention and held that ‘unavoidable cause’, like sickness, must be in relation to the child and not the parent.

Citations:

[1949] 2 KB 218

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.179637

White v Trevor Aldridge Qc (President of the Special Needs Tribunal) and London Borough of Ealing: CA 2 Dec 1998

Appeal against special education needs statement – autistic boys.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1887

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave – White v Aldridge QC and Another CA 26-Oct-1998
Application for leave to appeal against special education needs statement – granted. . .

Cited by:

Full appeal – White v Aldridge QC and Another CA 26-Oct-1998
Application for leave to appeal against special education needs statement – granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145366

Siborurema, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator: CA 20 Dec 2007

The student appealed a decision of his university to the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. The adjudicator looked only at the procedures followed by the university. The student complained that he had not looked at the underlying facts.
Held: Leave to bring judicial review was refused. The Adjudicator had a wide discretion, and no fault in law had been shown in how he had exercised it. Students in such situtaions would often have the alternative of a civil claim direct against the university.

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Civ 1365

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262943

White v Aldridge QC and Another: CA 26 Oct 1998

Application for leave to appeal against special education needs statement – granted.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1610

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – White v Aldridge Qc and London Borough of Ealing Admn 30-Jul-1998
Appeals against special education needs statements – autistic boys. . .
Full appeal – White v Trevor Aldridge Qc (President of the Special Needs Tribunal) and London Borough of Ealing CA 2-Dec-1998
Appeal against special education needs statement – autistic boys. . .

Cited by:

Leave to appeal – White v Aldridge Qc and London Borough of Ealing Admn 30-Jul-1998
Appeals against special education needs statements – autistic boys. . .
Application for leave – White v Trevor Aldridge Qc (President of the Special Needs Tribunal) and London Borough of Ealing CA 2-Dec-1998
Appeal against special education needs statement – autistic boys. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145089

Sulak v Turkey: ECHR 1996

(Commission) A reasonable denial of the right to education does not violate the Convention.

Citations:

(1996) 84-A DR 98

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Ali v The Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School CA 29-Mar-2004
The student had been unlawfully excluded from school. The school had not complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the Act.
Held: Though the 1996 Act placed the responsibilty for exclusion upon the local authority, the head and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195704

South Glamorgan County Council v L and M: 1996

Citations:

[1996] ELR 400

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v GB and Others CA 22-Aug-2001
When an appeal was lodged against the decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, it was wrong for that Tribunal later to expand on its reasons, save in exceptional circumstances. Parental preference was not an overriding consideration, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Education

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.224965

Regina v Bedfordshire County Council ex parte DE: 1 Jul 1996

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Unreported, 1 July 1996, CO/3921/95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Binding – In Re S CA 1995
Parents wanted their children to attend English middle schools in Wales. The Court dealt with the argument that the objective suitability of the nearer school had to be considered by the court on judicial review. Alternatively, it was argued that it . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.199249

X, Regina (on The Application of) v Office for Standards In Education, Children’s Services and Skills and Another: CA 7 May 2020

Appeal against the refusal of an application by a school for an interim injunction to prevent the publication of an inspection report prepared by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (‘Ofsted’) until the determination of judicial review proceedings challenging that report.

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650661

Regina v University of London; Ex parte Vijayatunga: 1988

The court considered the powers of the Visitors to the University. Simon Brown J said: ‘The Visitor enjoys untrammelled jurisdiction to investigate and correct wrongs done in the administration of the internal law of a Foundation to which he is appointed: a general power to right wrongs and redress grievances and if that on occasions requires the visitor to act akin rather to an Appeal Court than to a Review Court, so be it. Indeed there may well be occasions when he could not properly act other than as an essentially appellate tribunal’.
As to the nature of judicial review, he said: ‘Judicial review is the exercise of the court’s inherent power at common law to determine whether action is lawful or not; in a word to uphold the rule of law’.

Judges:

Simon Brown J

Citations:

[1988] QB 322, [1987] 3 All ER 204, [1988] 2 WLR 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Education

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.442688

LG, Regina (on the Application of) v Tom Hood School; Regina (V: a Child) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School and Others: Admn 2 Mar 2009

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to confirm his exclusion from the school, arguing that his exclusion engaged his article 6 rights.
Held: The application failed. The decision to exclude a student from a particular school did not engage his article 6 rights. The panel proceedings were not either to be classified as criminal proceedings.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 369 (Admin), Times 18-Mar-2009, [2009] ACD 47, [2009] ELR 248, [2009] BLGR 691

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education (Pupil Exclusion and Appeals) (Maintained Schools) (England) Regulation 2002 (SI 2002/3178) 7A, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Human Rights

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.311769

Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another: CA 24 Oct 2007

Where it was proposed to provisionally list care workers as been prevented from undertaking work with vulnerable adults or children, that worker should be given opportunity to make representations first. Provisional listing did engage article 6, but that a breach could be avoided by giving the care worker a right to make representations before being placed on the list. This could be catered for under section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 by a declaration that section 82(4) was to be read and given effect by reading in the words ‘and after giving the worker an opportunity to make representations (unless the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the delay resulting from affording such an opportunity would place a vulnerable adult at risk of harm)’. (May LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Dyson and Jacob LJJ, May LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 999, Times 16-Nov-2007, [2008] 1 QB 422, [2008] 2 WLR 536, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 31, [2008] UKHRR 294, [2008] 1 All ER 886

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Care Standards Act 2000, Human Rights Act 1998 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Secretary of State for Education and Skills Admn 16-Nov-2006
The various applicants sought judicial review of the operation of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List insofar as they had been placed provisionally on the list, preventing them from finding work. One complaint was that the list had operated . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.260053

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review R v Liverpool John Moores University ex parte Hayes: CA 18 May 1998

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 847, [1998] ELR 261

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clarke, Regina (On the Application of) v Cardiff University Admn 19-Aug-2009
The claimant complained of her treatment by the defendant’s law department in their assessment of her work. She had supported a complaint of race discrimination by another student against one of the people who marked her work. The court had ordered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144326

KW and VW v London Borough of Lewisham: 2007

Wilkie J said: ‘In my judgment, in a case such as this, where there were contending points of view being expressed by various professionals on either side of the argument, the tribunal has given sufficient reasons by identifying which side of the argument had succeeded.’

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2007] ELR 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H v East Sussex County Council and Others CA 31-Mar-2009
The claimant had a statement of special educational needs, which she sought to have altered to specify a different school. She appealed from a refusal to amend the statement, saying that the Tribunal had not given sufficient weight to educational . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.342146

H v Kent County Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal: 2000

Grigson J said: ‘A specialist tribunal such as SENDIST can use its expertise in deciding issues but if it rejects expert evidence it should state so specifically. In certain circumstances it may be required to say why it rejects it.’

Judges:

Grigson J

Citations:

[2000] ELR 660

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H v East Sussex County Council and Others CA 31-Mar-2009
The claimant had a statement of special educational needs, which she sought to have altered to specify a different school. She appealed from a refusal to amend the statement, saying that the Tribunal had not given sufficient weight to educational . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.342145

A, Regina (on the Application Of) v Hertfordshire County Council: CA 22 Mar 2001

Issue about the power of a local authority social services department to communicate to the education department of the authority and to school governors the conclusion which it has reached after enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 that a head teacher presents a risk of significant harm to children.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2113, [2001] BLGR 435, [2001] ACD 85, [2001] ELR 666

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Education

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.200857

Drayton Manor High School, Regina (on the Application of) v The Schools Adjudicator and Another: Admn 28 Oct 2008

The adjudicator had made a fundamental error in failing to take account of a central plank of the school’s case, and his adjudication was quashed.

Judges:

Judge Stewart, QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3119 (Admin), Times 24-Dec-2008, [2009] PTSR CS13, [2009] ELR 127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.278989

T v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Another: Admn 18 Jul 2002

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.

Judges:

Mr Justice Richards

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1474 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.175127

Richardson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Special Educational Needs Tribunal; White v London Borough of Ealing Special Needs Tribunal and Hereford and Worcester County Court v Karen Lane: CA 12 Feb 1998

The need to specify the special educational needs for a child did not necessarily mean that any particular school must be nominated, nor even that the need must be met through a school. Whilst the definition of ‘special educational provision’ in section 312(4) of the 1996 Act is wide enough to include naming a particular school, it is not implicit in the subsection that a particular school must be named; and that section 324(4)(b) does not impose a duty on the local education authority to name a particular school, it merely confers on it a discretion whether or not to do so.

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 226, [1998] ELR 319

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 324 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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:

Distinguished – Hackney London Borough Council v Silyadin QBD 17-Sep-1998
The Special Educational Needs Tribunal should not order a Local Authority to provide services which went beyond the special needs of the child. No need in rejecting Authority’s proposal to accept parent’s alternate choice. . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of MH v the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, the London Borough of Hounslow CA 25-Jun-2004
The child was subject to a statement of special educational needs. His parents expressed a preference for one mainstream school, but the authority allocated him to another. The court had been requested to give guidance on the meaning and effect of . .
See Also – 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.

Local Government, Education

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143704

London Borough of Lewisham and Others), Regina (on The Application of) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and Others: Admn 13 Feb 2013

Judicial review was sought of the changes to the marking systems for GCSE English in 2012.
Held: The claim failed. Though properly brought, the failure was in the underlying structue of the qualification, and not in the respondent’s attempts to manage it.
No legitimate expectation had been created, and indeed public documentation was contrary to the expectation claimed.
The claimants had failed to demonstrate any conspicuous unfairness: ‘Ofqual could not remedy any unfairness between the January and June cohorts without creating further unfairness elsewhere. The 2012 students would have been assessed more leniently than students in earlier years. In addition, there would have been students being assessed for units in June 2012 who would have been qualifying in June 2013. They could not in fairness be assessed more strictly than others assessed in June 2012 but qualifying in that year. But if they were assessed in this more favourable manner it would mean that the unfairness now felt by the current June 2012 students would be similarly experienced by the cohort taking these units in June 2013, comparing themselves with those qualifying on the same date who had completed the relevant units in June 2012. ‘
and ‘the examiners in June made assessments which they thought fairly reflected the standard of the scripts. In the light of the fuller information then available to them, their judgments were more accurate and more reliable than the January assessments. Wider concerns about creating unfairness as between those qualifying in different years, and the need to retain the value of the qualification, strongly militated against applying the January grades to the June assessments (even with such modification as may have been necessary to account for more lenient marking) to the June assessments. There was no obligation to extend the generosity of January to June; on the contrary, there was every reason to correct the earlier erroneous standard. There was no unfairness, conspicuous or otherwise, in what they did.’

Judges:

Elias LJ, Sharp J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 211 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Regina (Niazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimants sought to challenge decisions to restrict payments made to victims of miscarriages of justice. A discretionary scheme had been stopped, and payments of applicants’ costs had been restricted to Legal Help rates.
Held: The simple . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc CA 1996
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any . .
Cited – Regina v The National Lottery Commission ex parte Camelot Group Plc Admn 21-Sep-2000
The Commission had considered bids tendered in open competition to run The National Lottery. Neither of the two candidates who entered bids was considered to have satisfied all the criteria necessary to be given the relevant licence. The Commission . .
Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Cited – Hampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
Cited – Tate and Lyle Sugars Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Another CA 3-Jun-2011
The company had developed a means of generating electricity from their excess sugar supplies, and challenged the support given to it by the respondent and in particular that the 2009 Order allowed the respondent to favour some types of energy . .
Cited – Bailey and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Brent Council and Others CA 19-Dec-2011
Appeal against failure of challenge to decision to close public libraries. . .
Cited – Greenwich Community Law Centre, Regina (on The Application of) v Greenwich London Borough Council CA 24-Apr-2012
The Centre appealed from rejection of its claim for judicial review of the defendant’s decision to discontinue financial support for the Centre. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Administrative

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470948

Mushtaq (S 85A, (A): Scope; Academic Progress) Pakistan: UTIAC 8 Feb 2013

UTIAC (1) The effect of section 85A(3)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is such that Exception 2 can apply where an appeal is brought against an immigration decision of a kind specified in section 82(2)(a) or (d), whether or not the appeal includes, or is treated by section 85(1) as including, an appeal against another immigration decision.
(2) The requirement in former paragraph 120A of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules for the Sponsor to confirm that a proposed course of study ‘represents academic progress from previous study undertaken during the last period of leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student or as a Student’ is not displaced where the last period of leave granted to the applicant has been for some other reason than as such a Student. The benchmark for assessing academic progress is the last course of study.

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 61 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 85A(3)(a), Immigration Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Education

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470862

Horvath And Kiss v Hungary: ECHR 29 Jan 2013

ECHR The case concerned the complaints of two young men of Roma origin that their education in schools for the mentally disabled had been the result of misplacement and had amounted to discrimination. Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) read in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)
The Court underlined that there was a long history of misplacement of Roma children in special schools in Hungary. It found that the applicants’ schooling arrangement indicated that the authorities had failed to take into account their special needs as members of a disadvantaged group. As a result, the applicants had been isolated and had received an education which made their integration into majority society difficult.

Citations:

11146/11 – HEJUD, [2013] ECHR 92

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Horvath And Kiss v Hungary ECHR 3-Jul-2012
horvath_kiss_hungaryECHR2012
Statement of facts – The application concerns two young Romani men, who were misdiagnosed as having mental disabilities. As a result of these misdiagnoses, the applicants could not access mainstream education. Instead, they were educated in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education, Discrimination

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470652