Category: Education

Birkdale School, Sheffield v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 5 Mar 2008

The private school operated a fee refund scheme for when a child was absent in certain circumstances.
Held: The services provided by the school were part of one service of providing educational services and were exempt fom VAT.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 409 (Ch), Times 23-Apr-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Birkdale School, Sheffield v Revenue and Customs VDT 3-Apr-2007
VAT was sought to be charged on a scheme where parents at a fee paying independent school were allowed a refund if their child was absent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Education

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.266095

AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 16 Oct 2008

When applying for entry under a sponsorship arrangement, the three applicable rules disallowed third party support.
Laws LJ said: ‘The immigrant’s article 8 rights will (must be) protected by the Secretary of State and the court whether or not that is done through the medium of the immigration rules. It follows that the rules are not of themselves required to guarantee compliance with the article.’

Judges:

Pill, Laws and Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1082, [2009] Imm AR 254

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 10-Apr-2008
The claimant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a postgraduate doctor. The immigration rules which had been laid before Parliament in accordance with section 3(2) of the 1971 Act and which were current at the time of her . .
Approved – KA and others (Adequacy of Maintenance) Pakistan IAT 4-Sep-2006
The Tribunal adopted the level of income support as the test of adequate maintenance – at that level it could not be said that the family were not properly maintained but neither should it be contemplated that immigrants would live below that level. . .

Cited by:

Cited – De Oliveira, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be allowed to stay in the UK to complete her studies. The respondent said that her course did not meet the criteria, being for professional membership of the British Computer Society, and not at a formal degree level . .
Cited – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276973

E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another: Admn 16 Jul 2008

Application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1665 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Principle judgement – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 3-Jul-2008
The court considered the impact of secular discrimination policy on admissions policies of religious schools.
Held: A school admissions policy which gave priority to children of their designated faith did not discriminate unlawfully either . .

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 . .
Leave to appeal – E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another CA 25-Jun-2009
E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested . .
Leave to Appeal – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body Of JFS and Another CA 10-Jul-2009
. .
Cited – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
See Also – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270846

H v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): Admn 14 Apr 2010

The Youth Court asked whether a teacher who teaches at a school for children with special needs, including those with behavioural problems, impliedly consents to the use of violence against him. In other words the question continues, should the principles which apply in cases of contact sports be applied to incidents within institutions dealing with those with special needs.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1374 (Admin), [2010] 4 All ER 264, [2012] 2 WLR 296, [2012] QB 257

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Crime, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.466800

WS v Whitefield Schools and Centre and Another: Admn 7 May 2008

S challenged the decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal that the school had not failed to ensure the return of his son to school within the academic year.
Held:The weight to be attached to any particular evidence ‘is essentially a matter for the Tribunal, unless the approach can be shown to be so illogical as to be irrational or perverse’.

Judges:

Dobbs J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1196 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – DC v London Borough of Ealing UTAA 11-Jan-2010
Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT) – statements of reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270067

A 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 enlargement of the time to commence the action.
Held: The appeal failed. It had no prospect of success if it was allowed to proceed. Sedley LJ said that it was not possible ‘to spell out of this unhappy interlude, with its undoubtedly adverse consequences for both A and his parents, either a failure of the education system or a denial of access to it.’

Judges:

Ward, Sedley, Hughes LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 364, [2009] LGR 182

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – A 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.

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266869

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 Apr 2008

The claimant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a postgraduate doctor. The immigration rules which had been laid before Parliament in accordance with section 3(2) of the 1971 Act and which were current at the time of her application stated that a person who had only an overseas medical degree was (subject to other requirements) eligible to apply for an extension of leave as a postgraduate doctor. After the date of her application, the relevant rule was replaced by a rule which required an applicant to have completed a recognised United Kingdom degree. The issue was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to determine the application by reference to the new rule.
Held: Buxton LJ considered the rules setting the requirements for a course of education to qualify it for the admission of foreign nationals as students: ‘These rules are not to be construed with all the strictness applicable to the construction of a statute or a statutory instrument. They must be construed sensibly according to the natural meaning of the language that is employed. The rules give guidance to the various officers concerned and contain statements of general policy regarding the operation of the relevant immigration legislation.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 308, [2008] Imm AR 632, [2009] 1 WLR 126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Adopted – AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer CA 16-Oct-2008
When applying for entry under a sponsorship arrangement, the three applicable rules disallowed third party support.
Laws LJ said: ‘The immigrant’s article 8 rights will (must be) protected by the Secretary of State and the court whether or not . .
Applied – De Oliveira, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be allowed to stay in the UK to complete her studies. The respondent said that her course did not meet the criteria, being for professional membership of the British Computer Society, and not at a formal degree level . .
Appeal from – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266557

Ayiwe, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Hackney: CA 21 Dec 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal in respect of what was originally a decision of the London Borough of Hackney as to whether the applicant should receive student support.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2055

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education (Student Support) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.218586

Begum, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School: Admn 15 Jun 2004

A schoolgirl complained that she had been excluded from school for wearing a form of attire which accorded with her Muslim beliefs.
Held: The school had made great efforts to establish what forms of wear were acceptable within the moslem community, and set uniform standards accordingly. However sincere her religious beliefs, the claimant had chosen not to comply with the school rules, and had excluded herself.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1389 (Admin), Times 18-Jun-2004, [2004] ELR 374

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina on Application of A v Head Teacher of Penlan School And; Governors of Penlan School and and City and County of Swansea Admn 31-Aug-2001
A school wrote a letter to a child’s parents saying that he would be permanently excluded after verbal violence against a teacher. This was said to have followed earlier serious and repeated problems of indiscipline. His appeal was successful, and . .
Cited – Campbell and Cosans v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1982
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten ‘cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State’s power of regulation in article 2’. The Convention protects only religions and . .
Cited – Kokkinakis v Greece ECHR 25-May-1993
The defendant was convicted for proselytism contrary to Greek law. He claimed a breach of Article 9.
Held: To say that Jehovah’s Witness were proselytising criminally was excessive. Punishment for proselytising was unlawful in the . .
Cited – Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Oct-2000
The Grand Chamber considered executive interference in the appointment of the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims: ‘Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the . .
Cited – Finland ECHR 3-Dec-1996
(Commission) An employee of the Finnish State Railways was dismissed for failing to respect his working hours on the basis that to work after sunset on a Friday was forbidden by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, of which he was a member.
Held: . .
Cited – Stedman v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Apr-1997
(Commission) The applicant alleged that her dismissal for refusal to work on Sundays constituted a violation of her freedom to manifest her religion in worship, practice and observance, contrary to Article 9.
Held: The Commission first had to . .
Cited – Silver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Cited – Relating 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – In re L (a minor by his father and litigation friend); Regina v Governors of J School, ex parte L HL 27-Feb-2003
A pupil had been excluded from school, then ordered to be re-instated by the independent appeal panel. The teachers’ union objected to his return to the school. The head-teacher arranged for him to be taught and supervised at school by a non-union . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – SB, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School CA 2-Mar-2005
The applicant, a Muslim girl sought to be allowed to wear the gilbab to school. The school policy which had been approved by Muslim clerics prohibited this, saying the shalwar kameeze and headscarf were sufficient. The school said she was making a . .
At First Instance – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.198223

M, Regina (on the Application of) v Sutton London Borough Council: CA 21 Nov 2007

The local authority had in the statement of special educational needs specified a school in accordance with the parent’s choice, but on condition that the parents were to be responsible for the cost of transport to and from school.
Held: The authority’s appeal against an order that it should pay for the transport succeeded. The authority had complied with its statutory obligations when requiring the condition.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1205, Times 03-Jan-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 324

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261455

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills: Admn 10 Oct 2007

The claimant sought to prevent the distribution by the respondent to all schools of a copy of a film about the environment made by the former US President, Al Gore.
Held: Though there were certain inacurracies, these could be dealt with by addenda, without having to withhold the film.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin), [2008] 1 All ER 367

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Environment

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259852

Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v General Teaching Council for England: Admn 8 Jun 2007

Appeal against finding that applicant was guilty of unacceptable professional misconduct as a teacher and the issue of a prohibition order.

Judges:

McCombie J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1675 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Teaching and Higher Education Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254610

Ceredigion County Council v Jones and others: HL 23 May 2007

The parties had disputed the provision of free travel to school, and permission had been granted for a leapfrog appeal direct to the House of Lords. The Council then sought instead to take the matter to the Court of Appeal. The claimants said that they had no such choice.
Held: If a party found the terms of the reference to the House unwelcome, he had the alternative of proceeding instead to appeal to the Court of Appeal: ‘a term precluding argument on a specific point or points cannot be treated as irrevocable or incapable of revision, but written cases will be drafted and oral argument prepared in compliance with such a term, from which the appellate committee will ordinarily be unwilling to depart.’ The council had been free to withdraw its petition.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 24, Times 24-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1969, Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher HL 1961
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
See Also – Jones and others v Ceredigion County Council CA 28-Jul-2005
The parties had challenged the respondent’s decision not to provide free transport to school. The judge granted certificates allowing leave to apply direct to the House of Lords on two issues, and to the Court of Appeal on one other. The House later . .
See Also – 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.

Litigation Practice, Education

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252519

London Borough of Haringey v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Carver: Admn 10 Sep 1996

Gilliatt The parents of a child with cerebral palsy, and who needed to use a wheelchair, wished her to attend a particular mainstream school near to her home, and which most of her friends from primary school had attended. The local authority argued at the SENT that their preferred option was more suitable, as financial resources were being allocated to adapt that school to meet the needs of a number of disabled students, whereas the parents’ preferred choice would involve additional expenditure of some pounds 120,000. The SENT’s decision (to uphold the parents’ choice) was attacked on the grounds that the reasons were not clearly set out. The court held that the reasons were sufficiently clear, but even if they had not been the decision was a reasonable one which the SENT had been entitled to reach on the evidence before it.

Judges:

Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136621

Regina v Special Educational Needs Tribunal ex parte Fairpo: Admn 16 Jul 1996

Gilliatt A foster parent wished to appeal to the SENT against a decision to refuse to provide a statement in respect of a child with special educational needs. The definition of a parent under s 114(b) of the Education Act 1993 included any person who has care of a child ‘unless the context otherwise requires’. It was argued that the local authority with parental responsibility or the natural parents should take precedence over a foster parent. The court held that the words ‘unless the context otherwise requires were insufficient to exclude a foster carer as a person involved in the full-time care of a child on a settled basis. It might well be in the child’s interests that a case could be taken to the SENT if there was a disagreement between the statutory parent and the actual carer.

Judges:

Mr Justice Laws

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 38

Statutes:

Education Act 1993 114(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136586

Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee: HL 24 Mar 1982

A private school had refused to admit the claimant, a sikh, because he would be unable to wear the school uniform. He claimed racial discrimination. The school denied that being a Sikh was a membership of a racial or ethnic group.
Held: Sikhs were a racial group defined by ethnic origins for the purpose of the Race Relations Act. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said: ‘My Lords, I recognise that ‘ethnic’ conveys a flavour of race but it cannot, in my opinion, have been used in the Act of 1976 in a strictly racial or biological sense. For one thing, it would be absurd to suppose that Parliament can have intended that membership of a particular racial group should depend upon scientific proof that a person possessed the relevant distinctive biological characteristics (assuming that such characteristics exist).’

Judges:

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Citations:

[1982] UKHL 7, [1983] IRLR 209, [1983] 2 WLR 620, [1983] 2 AC 548, [1983] ICR 385, [1983] 1 All ER 1062, Times 25-Mar-1983

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 1(1A)

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 . .
Cited – E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another CA 25-Jun-2009
E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Education

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248663

Regina v London Borough of Islington ex parte East: Admn 1996

The court considered the obligation on an authority to consult: ‘.. the precise demands of consultation .. there according to the circumstances .. The extent and method of consultation must depend on the circumstances. Underlying what is required must be the concept of fairness’

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

[1996] ELR 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Devon County Council Ex Parte Baker, Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Broxson CA 22-Feb-1993
A Local Authority considering closing a residential home did not have a duty to notify and consult with each resident who might be affected, but did have a duty to act fairly, and to give sufficiently prominent notice and sufficient time to allow . .

Cited by:

Cited – Capenhurst and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council Admn 15-Sep-2004
The applicants, representatives of voluntary organisations, challenged decisions of the local authority to withdraw their funding, saying the decision making process had been unfair.
Held: Even if it was not bound to consult, if the authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Administrative

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.213646

Alexis v London Borough Of Newham: QBD 15 Jun 2009

The teacher claimant had been poisoned when a student got into an unsupervised classroom, and put whiteboard fluid into her drinking water.
Held: The authority should foresee the presence of mischievous pupils, and take reasonable steps to protect others from them. However, in this case it would have been impracticable to have stopped a teacher asking a pupil to pop down a corridor to collect something. The general policy of not allowing unsupervised access to classrooms was a sensible answer.

Judges:

Roger Ter Haar, QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1323 (QB), Times 15-Jul-2009, [2009] ICR 1517

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Negligence, Education

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.347104

Jones and others v Ceredigion County Council: CA 28 Jul 2005

The parties had challenged the respondent’s decision not to provide free transport to school. The judge granted certificates allowing leave to apply direct to the House of Lords on two issues, and to the Court of Appeal on one other. The House later decided only to allow an appeal on terms unacceptable to the council. The council now sought to raise each issue in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal could proceed (Waller LJ dissenting). The crucial element lay in section 13(2). That subsection prevented an appeal where a decision had been made, but the word ‘decision’ was not to be restricted to the meaing of judgment or order’ in section 16(1) of the 1961 Act. The judge had granted permission, and therefore thought there was some possibility of success. The case should therefore be heard.

Judges:

Waller, Maurice Kay LJJ, Sir Christopher Staunton

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 986, Times 16-Sep-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3626

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 509(1), Administration of Justice Act 1969 12(1) 13(2)(b), Supreme Court Act 1961 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lake v Lake CA 1955
Mrs Lake’s answer to an allegation of adultery had been one of denial or, in the alternative, condonation. Her husband’s petition was dismissed, the Commissioner finding that there had been adultery but that it had been condoned. She sought to . .
Cited – Zenovics, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 7-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Emmett and Another HL 16-Oct-1997
The defendants had been arrested as they unloaded four tons of cannabis from a boat.
Held: Their appeal against a confiscation order was allowed despite the acceptance of a statement when the acceptance had been based on a mistake of law or . .

Cited by:

See Also – Ceredigion County Council v Jones and others HL 23-May-2007
The parties had disputed the provision of free travel to school, and permission had been granted for a leapfrog appeal direct to the House of Lords. The Council then sought instead to take the matter to the Court of Appeal. The claimants said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.229051

Mursel 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.

Citations:

60856/00, [2006] ECHR 119, (2007) 44 EHRR 28

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A2P1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239508

Ali 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 the expiry of the forty five days, the criminal proceedings were discontinued. The local authority began to make arrangements for alternative tuition. Only six months later the family asked for the son to be allowed to return, but the school then said that his place had been filled. He sought damages for infringement of his right to education.
Held: The school’s appeal succeeded (Baroness Hale of Richmond dissenting in part). However had the court been asked for a declaration of incomptibility rather than damages, the result might have differed. The right to education was not absolute, but regulation of the right must not impair its essence. The statutes left the school in a position in which it was not possible to do the right thing. After the fixed period suspension, its only choice was to re-instate or to make the suspension permanent. The exclusion had been on management not disciplinary grounds. The guidance did not assist, but even so the suspensions failed to meet the criteria required.
Lord Hoffmann said that the statutory code was well adapted to the use of exclusion as a punishment for a serious disciplinary offence, imposed in the interests of the education and welfare of the pupil and others in the school. It was far less suitable for dealing with a case like the case under appeal ‘in which the pupil was excluded on precautionary rather than penal grounds.’
Baroness Hale discussed the dichotomy between disciplinary and precautionary grounds for suspension of a student: ‘Section 64 is concerned only with exclusion ‘on disciplinary grounds’. The requirements all assume that it is imposed as a determinate sanction for a serious breach of discipline, rather than as an indeterminate precaution pending the resolution of what may or may not turn out to have been a serious breach of discipline.’
Lord Bingham set out the legal principles applicable in an A2P1 claim: ‘The Strasbourg jurisprudence . . makes clear how article 2 should be interpreted. The underlying premise of the article was that all existing member states of the Council of Europe had, and all future member states would have, an established system of state education. It was intended to guarantee fair and non-discriminatory access to that system by those within the jurisdiction of the respective states. The fundamental importance of education in a modern democratic state was recognised to require no less. But the guarantee is, in comparison with most other Convention guarantees, a weak one, and deliberately so. There is no right to education of a particular kind or quality, other than that prevailing in the state. There is no Convention guarantee of compliance with domestic law. There is no Convention guarantee of education at or by a particular institution. There is no Convention objection to the expulsion of a pupil from an educational institution on disciplinary grounds, unless (in the ordinary way) there is no alternative source of state education open to the pupil (as in Eren v Turkey (Application No 60856/00) (unreported) 7 February 2006). The test, as always under the Convention, is a highly pragmatic one, to be applied to the specific facts of the case: have the authorities of the state acted so as to deny to a pupil effective access to such educational facilities as the state provides for such pupils? In this case, attention must be focused on the school, as the only public authority the respondent sued, and (for reasons already given) on the period from 7 June 2001 to 20 January 2002.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond

Citations:

Times 27-Mar-2006, [2006] UKHL 14, 20 BHRC 295, [2006] 2 All ER 457, [2006] ELR 223, [2006] 2 WLR 690, [2006] 2 AC 363

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Hman Rights P1 A2, Education Act 1996 7 19(1), School Standards and Framework Act 1998 64 65 66 67, Human Rights Act 1998 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Ali v Head and Governors of Lord Grey School QBD 27-Jun-2003
The claimant had been expelled from school unlawfully, and now sought damages for the breach of his right to an education.
Held: The claimant had received and had refused appropriate offers of alternate schools. The duty was imposed generally . .
Appeal From – 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 . .
Cited – Relating 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 . .
Cited – Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .
Cited – Timishev v Russia ECHR 13-Dec-2005
The applicant complained of an alleged infringement of his Article 2 rights. His children had been excluded from school because he was not registered as resident in the area. His appeal to the domestic courts was dismissed, although the Government . .
Cited – 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 CA 17-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Campbell and Cosans v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1982
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten ‘cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State’s power of regulation in article 2’. The Convention protects only religions and . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Cited – Simpson v United Kingdom ECHR 1989
The right to be provided with an education does not guarantee access to any particular institution provided. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
Cited – Holub 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 . .
Cited – Yasanik v Turkey ECHR 1993
(Commission) The applicant had been expelled from a military academy, and complained of the infringement of his article 2 rights.
Held: There was no denial of the right to education because the Turkish education system also included civilian . .
Cited – In re L (a minor by his father and litigation friend); Regina v Governors of J School, ex parte L HL 27-Feb-2003
A pupil had been excluded from school, then ordered to be re-instated by the independent appeal panel. The teachers’ union objected to his return to the school. The head-teacher arranged for him to be taught and supervised at school by a non-union . .

Cited by:

Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – JR17 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant was excluded from school. A female pupil related her fear of him to a teacher, but would not make a formal complaint, and the appellant was not to be told of the report or the investigation of it. There was said to have been confusion . .
Cited – 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 . .
At House of Lords – Ali v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jan-2011
The applicant had been excluded from school after a fire for which he was suspected pending completion of the police enquiry, which extended beyond the maximum allowed. Though the investigation was completed with no action against him, the scholl . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Human Rights

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239350

College of Estate Management v Customs and Excise: HL 20 Oct 2005

The college supplied educational services by distance learning. The commissioner sought to argue that printe daterials supplied with the course were ancillary and did not have the same exemption form VAT.
Held: The supplies did benefit from the exemption. The attempt to separate out the supply of prnted course materials was articifial and inconvincing. The court had to decide whether it was a separate supply. Save that it had not been necessary to make a findng that the provision of the materials was ancillary to the supply of educational services, the original decision of the tribual was correct, and should be restored. Appeal courts should be circumspect in overturning assessments made bu first-instance tribunals: ‘Not every nuance of a first-instance tribunal’s assessment of the evidence can be conveyed in its written reasons, however carefully prepared’ (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe)

Judges:

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 62, Times 26-Oct-2005, [2005] STC 1597, [2005] 1 WLR 3351, [2005] 4 All ER 933

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Council Directive 77/388/EEC

Citing:

Cited – Beynon and Partners v Customs and Excise HL 25-Nov-2004
The House asked whether the personal administration of a drug such as a vaccine by an NHS doctor to a patient is a taxable supply for the purposes of value added tax. The provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical . .
Cited – Faaborg-Gelting Linien v Finanzamt Flensburg ECJ 2-May-1996
A non-takeaway restaurant is a supply of services, and a ferry supply was made from its place of business. The supply of prepared food and drink at a restaurant resulted from a whole series of services (including the preparation and service of the . .
Appeal from – College of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 11-Aug-2004
When offering courses to distance learning students, the College offered materials for the courses. As part of the course this supply would be exempt, as books, the supply would be zero-rated, but the taxpayer would be able to reclaim its VAT . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v British Telecommunications Plc HL 11-Feb-1999
The cost of the delivery of a quantity of new cars from the factory or depot to the purchaser is incidental and ancillary to the supply of the cars themselves, and the VAT on delivery charges was not reclaimable by the purchasing company as Input . .
Cited – College of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 11-Aug-2004
When offering courses to distance learning students, the College offered materials for the courses. As part of the course this supply would be exempt, as books, the supply would be zero-rated, but the taxpayer would be able to reclaim its VAT . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Madgett and Baldwin (trading as Howden Court Hotel) ECJ 22-Oct-1998
The court considered the criteria for determining whether the provision to guests by a hotelier of travel services (and in particular transport to and from the hotel and excursions) constituted supply which was ancillary to the supply of . .
Tribunal Decision – International Correspondence Schools Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise VDT 2002
. .

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jan-2008
The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading (OFT) v Abbey National Plc and Others SC 25-Nov-2009
The banks appealed against a ruling that the OFT could investigate the fairness or otherwise of their systems for charging bank customers for non-agreed items as excessive relative to the services supplied. The banks said that regulation 6(2) could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Education

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231237

AM v Reverend Joseph Hendron and others: OHCS 13 Sep 2005

Serious abuse was said to have been inflicted by monks of the De La Salle order on those in their charge at an approved school in Scotland. The former pupil claimant contended that the SED owed him a non-delegable duty which entitled him to financial redress for his suffering.
Held: The case could not be dismissed for irrelevancy.
Lady Paton said: ‘In the present case, I have ultimately concluded that the reasoning of the House of Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215, the developing jurisprudence relating to the concept of a non-delegable duty of care in certain contexts, and underlying policy reasons, make it necessary for the courts to recognise the existence of a common law non-delegable duty of care on the part of a government body such as that represented by the eighteenth defender in respect of children allocated by the government to government-created residential schools such as St. Ninian’s. Such a non-delegable duty of care may be particularly relevant where it is not possible to establish more traditional liability such as direct or vicarious liability. In the context of a non-delegable duty of care, liability may arise even where there has been no fault on the part of the government body.
In reaching that conclusion, I have not overlooked the concerns expressed by Gleeson C.J., Callinan J., and Gummow and Hayne J.J. in Lepore, when they point out that an unrestricted development of the concept of a non-delegable duty of care could result in an unacceptable extension of liability. I also accept the force of Lord Bridge’s observations in D and F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England [1989] 1 A.C. 177, at pages 210D-E. However it seems to me that, in the context of abuse by staff of inmates of residential establishments, those concerns and observations are met and answered by the guidelines laid down by the House of Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] A.C.215′ and
‘the underlying policy reasons referred to in paragraph [113] above include a perception that it is unacceptable for a government body responsible for a system of residential schools to have no liability for abuse inflicted on pupils by staff whose task it is to care for, supervise, or instruct those pupils, on the technical ground that certain functions (such as entering into contracts of employment with members of staff) have been delegated to others such as unpaid members of the community performing what might be seen as civic duties. If the obvious link of employer-employee is not clearly available in relation to the government body, then the pupil is left to attempt to recover damages in respect of injuries suffered at the hands of those placed in authority over him, from others fulfilling certain functions within the system. There is no reason in principle or precedent why a government body should in such circumstances be free of liability for abuse in a situation such as is envisaged in Lister – that is, where there is a close connection between the work which the staff were engaged to perform and the type of abuse inflicted. In such circumstances, the concept of a non-delegable duty of care at common law is in my view appropriate, and would be fair, just and reasonable to impose. The medical context offers a useful parallel, in particular the dicta of Lord Denning in Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 K.B. 343; the observations of Lord Phillips M.R. at paragraph 63 of A v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWCA Civ 641; and the views of Mason J. in Introvigne, referred to in paragraphs [23] and [25] of New South Wales v Lepore.’

Judges:

Lady Paton

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSOH – 121

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Cited by:

Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
See Also – McE v Hendron and de La Salle Brothers SCS 11-Apr-2007
(Opinion of Lord Osborne) The claimant sought damages saying that he had suffered abuse while a pupil at the approved school managed by the respondents. The claim was a test case as there were pending some 150 additional cases where abuse was . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Personal Injury, Education, Negligence

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230233

Singh v Bracknell Forest Borough Council (Formerly the Royal County of Berkshire) and Special Educational Needs Tribunal: Admn 24 Jul 1998

Gilliatt Parents of a child with autism appealed against the refusal of the LEA to nominate the school of their choice which was sympathetic to the Lovaas approach to the education of autistic children. On an examination of the tribunal’s reasoning, the court held that the tribunal could not be criticised. They had carried out the relevant process of reasoning albeit they had not referred to particular sections of the Education Act.

Judges:

Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 780

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.138901

W v Leeds City Council and SENDIST: CA 29 Jul 2005

The court recognised a distinction between educational and non-educational provision as it affected a statement of special educational needs. Judge LJ: ‘Consistent with the relevant statutory provision, Part 3 of the Statement must make provision for the educational needs specified in Part 2: no more, no less. Provision is not required to be made in Part 3 for matters of background and comment, nor even for needs which in the judgment of SENDIST do not amount to educational needs.’
Wall LJ discussed the need for reasons to be given by SENDIST: ‘I do not think it necessary for this court to add to the already substantial jurisprudence on this topic. Speaking for myself, I have always regarded the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham MR (as he then was) in this court in Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250 (even though it substantially antedates the incorporation into English Law of ECHR) as the definitive exposition of the attitude superior courts should adopt to the reasons given by Tribunals. Whilst, of course, some aspects of the reasoning processes of different specialist tribunals are unique to the particular speciality which is engaged, I see no reason, in this context, to distinguish between Employment Tribunals and what are now SENDISTs. ‘

Judges:

Judge LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) v Brain CA 1981
The Court discussed how to evaluate whether the employers acted reasonably: ‘Whether someone acted reasonably is always a pure question of fact. Where parliament has directed a tribunal to have regard to equity – and that, of course, means common . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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, Discrimination

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229212

R, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court and others: Admn 28 Jun 2005

A 15-year-old girl did not go to school because she was bullied there and her mother kept her away.
Held: the mother had failed to meet her duties under the Act.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1479 (Admin), [2005] ELR 589

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 444

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Isle of Wight Council v Platt SC 6-Apr-2017
Regular school attendance is following the rules
The respondent had taken his child out of school during term time to go on holiday. The child otherwise had an excellent attendance record. The Council having failed on appeal to the Administrative Court, it appealed saying that the word ‘regularly’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228903

London Borough of Sutton v S: Admn 26 Oct 2004

The Borough appealed against acquittal by the magistrates of the defendant parent accused of failure to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school. The child had attended only irregularly. The parents had contacted the school and authorities and sought help and co-opertaed with the Borough, but their daughter had been unco-operative and eventually abusive.
Held: The appeal failed. The very strict nature of the offence under section 444(1) is and has for some considerable time been considered of great importance to support the duty placed by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 upon parents. However, the case of Barnfather had emphasised the need for the use of discretion by authorities. It may have been proper to bring proceedings before the magistrates, but it should have been obvious that the appeal had no prospects of success and could only cause further distress for the family involved. In essence this was a question of fact, and the court had rejected the evidence of the Education Welfare Officer.
The court considered whether, the parents having been found not guilty of the greater offence, the magistrates should have convicted them under the lesser offence, saying: ‘ It is important to stress that the public interest often requires that a person charged with a more serious offence should, if that is not made out, nonetheless be convicted of the lesser offence, if that is made out. The interests of justice are not served by acquittals in such circumstances. However, the test is the interests of justice.’ The matter should not be remitted.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Fulford J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2876 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 444

Citing:

Cited – Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills QBD 7-Mar-2003
The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human . .
Cited – Regina v Fairbanks CACD 1986
The defendant complained that the judge had not left an alternate verdict of careless driving to the jury where he had been charged with driving a motor vehicle on the road recklessly.
Held: The conviction was quashed.
Mustill LJ said: . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 1988
The defendant admitted paying two others to burgle his partner’s home, but said he had not anticipated violence, and appealed against his conviction for robbery, saying the judge should have left the alternative verdict to the jury. The jury, during . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226907

Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council: CA 23 Jan 2002

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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge, Lady Justice Hale and Sir Denis Henry

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Education, Negligence

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167485

Devon County Council v Clarke: CA 17 Mar 2005

The claimant had succeeded in his claim for damages for professional negligence for having failed to diagnose his learning difficulties. The defendants appealed the order for costs.
Held: Though successful, his success had been against only one of the defendants, and had lost on wholly discrete issues. It was appropriate that he should receive only 70% of his costs. Those advising such claimants should consider carefully with their experts which of the professionals it was reasonable to allege were negligent.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 266

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Education, Costs

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223630

SB, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School: CA 2 Mar 2005

The applicant, a Muslim girl sought to be allowed to wear the gilbab to school. The school policy which had been approved by Muslim clerics prohibited this, saying the shalwar kameeze and headscarf were sufficient. The school said she was making a voluntary choice not to attend.
Held: The applicant was not choosing to stay away but was had been excluded. A schoolchild has no free choice of school as might an adult the freedom to choose where to work. ‘SB’s freedom to manifest her religion or beliefs may only be subject to limitations that are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ The school was concerned that wearing the gilbab might put other pupils under pressure. The student’s religious beliefes were genuine. The school should have asked in turn whether the pupil had a Convention right capable of protection, was the right being violated, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate purpose, were there any balancing interests to see whether the interference was necessary, and lastly was the interference justified under the Convention. The school had failed to start from the acknowledgement of the pupil’s right to express her religious belief in the way she genuinely thought proper. The school needed to approach the issue correctly. If it did so it might come to the same or to a new conclusion. The declaration was granted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 199, Times 04-Mar-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3372

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Leyla Sahin v Turkey ECHR 29-Jun-2004
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been denied access to written examinations and to a lecture at the University of Istanbul because she was wearing an Islamic headscarf. This was prohibited not only by the rules of the university but also by the . .
Appeal from – Begum, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School Admn 15-Jun-2004
A schoolgirl complained that she had been excluded from school for wearing a form of attire which accorded with her Muslim beliefs.
Held: The school had made great efforts to establish what forms of wear were acceptable within the moslem . .
Cited – Kokkinakis v Greece ECHR 25-May-1993
The defendant was convicted for proselytism contrary to Greek law. He claimed a breach of Article 9.
Held: To say that Jehovah’s Witness were proselytising criminally was excessive. Punishment for proselytising was unlawful in the . .
Cited – Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Oct-2000
The Grand Chamber considered executive interference in the appointment of the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims: ‘Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the . .
Cited – Dahlab v Switzerland ECHR 15-Feb-2001
(Commission) A primary school teacher had been prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf at her school.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The court acknowledged the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities when . .
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 . .
Cited – Ahmad v United Kingdom ECHR 1981
(Commision) The applicant was a devout Muslim. His religious duty was to offer prayers on Fridays and to attend a mosque if possible. He was employed as a full time primary school teacher. He complained that he was forced to resign because he was . .
Cited – Stedman v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Apr-1997
(Commission) The applicant alleged that her dismissal for refusal to work on Sundays constituted a violation of her freedom to manifest her religion in worship, practice and observance, contrary to Article 9.
Held: The Commission first had to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Appeal from – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Human Rights

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223110

Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langleywood School: CA 16 Feb 2005

The court was asked as to who was the appropriate respondent when a claim for disability discrimination is brought by a teacher employed at a maintained community school with a delegated budget. The teacher’s contract of employment is with the local education authority, but the Governing Body of such a school is given extensive employment powers by the legislation, and in certain respects employment by the LEA is to be treated as if it were employment by the Governing Body.
Keene LJ (with whom Neuberger LJ agreed) commented on the effect of the relevant legislation, stating that: ‘One needs to bear in mind that the governing body of a school with a delegated budget is patently given the power by Schedule 16 to the 1998 Act to appoint, suspend and dismiss a teacher, and that the LEA has no power to prevent suspension or dismissal of a teacher from employment at the school in question. In those circumstances it would be an absurdity if the governing body were not to be held to have the power to grant [maternity] leave to a teacher at its school, whether on compassionate grounds or for any other proper purpose, and to decide whether or not such leave should be paid or unpaid. Its financial powers granted by section 50(3) of the 1998 Act confirm that: see para 10 above. I am satisfied therefore that, for all these reasons, the governing body of such a school has that power and only the governing body of such a school has that power.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2005] IRLR 382, [2005] EWCA Civ 122, Times 06-Apr-2005, [2005] ICR 721

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 5(2), School Standards and Framework Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Shahina Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langley Wood School EAT 26-May-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments . .
Cited – Green v The Governing Body Victoria Road Primary School Kent County Council EAT 24-Feb-2003
EAT Jurisdiction – appeal from an Employment Tribunal held at Ashford, Kent, who, following a Preliminary Hearing on 27 February 2002, unanimously decided that the named second Respondents, Kent County Council, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Davies v London Borough of Haringey QBD 17-Oct-2014
The claimant had been employed as a teaching assistant. She came to work with the union, eventually being released from her work full time to undertake the role within the union. The defendant suspended the claimant from her role for alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Education

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223103

Carty v London Borough of Croydon: CA 27 Jan 2005

The claimant sought damages in negligence from education officers employed by the respondent. He appealed refusal of his claim. A statement of special education needs had been made which he said did not address his learning difficulties. The authority, relying on Gorringe, said it was fulfilling a purely statutory duty.
Held: Courts had not previously considered whether education officers were professionals who might be liable in negligence to pupils. There was no blanket answer to the question of whether there was a common law duty of care: ‘where an education officer, in the performance of his or her statutory functions, enters into relationships with or assumes responsibilities towards a child, then he or she may owe a duty of care to that child. Whether such a duty is in fact owed will depend on an application of the Caparo test. ‘

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss Oresident, Mummery, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 19, Times 03-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Barrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Cited – Stovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
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 – A and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
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 by:

Cited – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The . .
Cited – Connor v Surrey County Council CA 18-Mar-2010
The claimant teacher said that she suffered personal injury from stress after the board of governors improperly failed to protect her from from false complaints. The Council now appealed against an award of substantial damages.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Education

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222933

DN (By her Father and Litigation Friend RN) v London Borough of Greenwich: CA 8 Dec 2004

The defendant sought to appeal her case.
Held: There were serious deficiencies in the way her case had been prepared as a result of severe limitations on the public funding available to conduct the case. The trial process could not in this case be seen as satisfactory.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice May The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1659, Times 23-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Negligence, Legal Aid

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220213

Regina (K) v Newham London Borough Council and Another: QBD 19 Feb 2002

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.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-2002

Statutes:

School Standards and Framework Act 1998 86(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 1 Art 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Valsamis v Greece ECHR 18-Dec-1996
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation . .
Cited – Regina v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Clark, Dakin and Others CA 19-Nov-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Human Rights

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.167668

Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design: CA 24 Jan 2002

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.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 69

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design QBD 11-Jul-2001
A student’s appeal against her examination marking was heard, but the reasons were only given some months later.
Held: When looking to see whether those reasons should be admitted, a court should be careful before accepting late reasons, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Administrative

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216727

Gaisiance, Regina (on the Application of) v McLone and others: CA 6 Feb 2002

‘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.’

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216784

X and Another v Caerphilly County Borough Council and Another: Admn 21 Sep 2004

The child challenged the statement of special educational needs prepared on his behalf. His parents urged that he be placed in a specialist residential school. The authority placed him in a mainstream Welsh speaking school. The psychologist said he did not need specialist language teaching because his poor language development was in line with his general achievements. The parents said he needed direct therapy.
Held: The tribunal erred in not asking whether there were exceptional reasons for thinking he did not need the assistance. The tribunal had failed to see that the need for occupational therapy went as to his educational as well as general needs, and should have been provided for in that section of the report. The decision was set aside.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2140 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Education

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214219

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, given the possible substantial costs of providing education in a special school. The tribunal must strike a balance, and see whether the refusal to find the additional costs was unreasonable. The costs should not be compared ‘at large’, and there is no protean law as to how such costs should be calculated.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1358, (2002) ELR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 324(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Powis CA 1981
Material not available to the decision maker should not normally be admitted on an application for a judicial review of that decision. The court described three categories of acceptable new evidence: (1) evidence to show what material was before the . .
Cited – Webb v Anglian Water Authority EAT 1981
If reference needs to be made to the evidence for the purposes of a statutory appeal, the ordinary resort is to as much of the documentation and notes of evidence as will help to determine what material basis there was for the impugned part of the . .
Cited – South Glamorgan County Council v L and M 1996
. .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – Regina v Croydon London Borough Council, ex parte Graham CA 1993
The very existence of material gaps in the reasons accompanying a decision may have rendered that decision unlawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Administrative

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.162839

Metcalfe and Others v Cox and Others (Council of University College, Dundee): HL 8 Apr 1895

Section 15 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889 provides that the Universities Commissioners appointed under the Act may ‘make ordinances’ to extend any of the universities by affiliating new colleges to them, subject, inter alia, to the condition that the University Court of the College shall be consenting parties.
Section 16 provides that, ‘without prejudice to any of the powers hereinbefore conferred, the Commissioners shall, with respect to the University of St Andrews and the University College of Dundee, have power (1) to affiliate the said University College to, and make it form part of, the said University with the consent of the University Court of St Andrews and also of the said college, with the object, inter alia, of establishing a fully equipped, conjoint university school of medicine, having due regard to existing interests, and to the aims and constitution of the said college as set forth in its deed of endowment and trust.’
By section 19 it is provided that the draft of any ‘ordinance’ prepared by the Commissioners must be submitted to the University Court, the Senatus Academicus, and the General Council of the University affected, who are empowered within three months to state objections and to propose amendments.
Section 20 provides (1) that all ‘ordinances’ made by the Commissioners shall be published in the Gazette, and laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if neither House presents an address praying the Queen to withhold her consent, it shall be lawful for the Queen in Council to approve of the ordinance; (2) that the University Court, Senatus Academicus, General Council, or any person directly affected by ‘any such ordinance’ may petition the Queen in Council to withhold her approbation of the whole or any part thereof, and on hearing the petition, the Queen in Council may either declare her approbation of the ordinance in whole or part, or signify her disapproval thereof, ‘and no such ordinance shall be effectual until it shall have been so published, laid before Parliament, and approved by Her Majesty in Council.
Held (rev. decision of a majority of Seven Judges) that the Commissioners could only exercise the power, conferred upon them by section 16, of affiliating the University College of Dundee to the University of St Andrews by issuing an ordinance according to the procedure prescribed by the Act, which would not be effectual until it had been laid before Parliament and approved by the Queen in Council.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Herschell), Lord Watson, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Morris

Citations:

[1895] UKHL 402, 32 SLR 402

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Education

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.634056

Nairn v University of St Andrews: HL 10 Dec 1908

Women graduates of St Andrews and Edinburgh, who, as graduates, were members of the general council of their university, sought a declarator that they were entitled to vote under section 27 of the 1868 Act. The section provided that ‘every person’ whose name was on the register of the general council, if of full age ‘and not subject to any legal incapacity’, was to be entitled to vote for the member of Parliament for the university.
Held: The section did not confer a right to vote on women graduates.
Lord Loreburn LC commented, ‘It would require a convincing demonstration to satisfy me that Parliament intended to effect a constitutional change so momentous and far-reaching by so furtive a process.’
Lord Ashbourne said: ‘If it was intended to make a vast constitutional change in favour of women graduates, one would expect to find plain language and express statement.’

Judges:

Lord Loreburn LC

Citations:

[1909] AC 147, 1909 SC (HL) 10, [1908] UKHL 3, (1908) 16 SLT 619

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868 27, Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act 1881

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Elections, Education

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.240006