Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Education - From: 1998 To: 1998

This page lists 48 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
De Hoop C-224/98
1998
ECJ

Education
(year?) The pursuit of education is an activity within the scope of the Treaty, with the result that Article 18 rights of residence apply when a citizen of the European Union is seeking to engage in it.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Kent County Council ex parte C [1998] ELR 108
1998

McCullough J
Education
A Local Education Authority could not properly refuse to provide free transport on the basis that there was a nearer school unless that nearer school was in its view suitable. In regard to Re S: "A little later, in relation to 'the alternative issue [of whether] the LEA [were] Wednesbury unreasonable and perverse in their decision not to continue to provide free transport', Butler-Sloss LJ said (pp132-134) that she entirely agreed with May J's approach and had nothing more to say about it. I have not found it easy to know what is the effect of this judgment and in particular to know what meaning the Court of Appeal was saying should be given to the words 'suitable arrangements . . for enabling him to become a registered pupil at a school nearer his home'. Despite the court's express disagreement with what Staughton LJ had said, I can hardly think that the court meant that the decision of a LEA that a school was suitable when it was obviously not would be beyond challenge. Suppose, to take an extreme and improbable example for the purpose of testing the point, that the nearer school which the LEA regarded as suitable was a boy's school and the child in question was a girl, or it was a special school and the child was of normal intelligence. I infer, therefore, that all the court was saying was that, whether in criminal proceedings in the magistrates' court or on an application for judicial review in the High Court, the objective suitability of a nearer school was not a material consideration and that the 'other arguments' which it was 'not strictly necessary to consider' were the further points advanced by counsel for the children in relation to his first submission. In the second section of the judgment, in which May J's consideration of the second submission was approved, there is nothing which suggests that the court regarded the Wednesbury exercise as superfluous. As the judgment said, counsel for the children was making alternative submissions. In these circumstances I think it right to follow R v Dyfed County Council ex parte S only so far as the decision binds this court. I take the case to have decided that the objective suitability of the nearer school was not a matter for the court to determine. Either that was all it decided, or, additionally, which I think more likely, it decided that the relevant question was whether the authority's view that the nearer school was suitable had been shown to have been reached unlawfully. I do not think that the court's disagreement with Staughton LJ's opinion was necessary to its decision since Staughton LJ was not saying that the court should consider the objective suitability of the nearer school. In my judgment: (1) a LEA cannot properly refuse to provide free transport on the basis that there is a nearer school which a child could attend unless it is of the view that the nearer school would be a suitable school for the child to attend, and (2) when considering a challenge to a local authority's refusal to provide free transport, if the refusal was based on the authority's view that there was a nearer suitable school, the function of the court is to see whether it has been shown that the authority's view about that school's suitability was lawfully reached, which in most cases will require no more than a consideration of the rationality of its conclusion. This accords with the approach of Staughton LJ, Roch J and May J, and I infer that Steyn LJ agreed with it. It agrees with the view of the Secretary of State as expressed in the circular, which, I note, he has not modified despite the decision of R v Dyfed County Council ex parte S. This is Circular No 1 of 1994, headed 'School Transport'".
1 Cites


 
Regina v Cheshire County Council ex parte C [1998] ELR 66
1998


Education, Judicial Review

1 Citers


 
Monk v Hereford and Worcester County Council and Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] EWHC Admin 64
26 Jan 1998
Admn
Mr Justice Kay
Education
Gilliatt Appeal against decision of LEA not to prepare a statement and SENT which upheld the LEA's refusal. The LEA contended that the child's needs were met within the school with input from the SENCO, and Educational Psychologist. The parents submitted evidence from a speech and language therapist and an educational psychologist that the child was suffering from a semantic pragmatic language disorder and his needs could not be met within the school. The tribunal's reasons were not clear as to the extent to which they did or did not accept this evidence, or their reasons for not accepting some of it. The case was remitted to the SENT for rehearing.

 
Regina v City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council and Michael Dorsey, Special Educational Needs Tribunal ex parte Karen Lisa Greenwood [1998] EWHC Admin 96
29 Jan 1998
Admn
Mr Justice Laws
Education
Gilliatt The parents of a child with profound and multiple learning difficulties provided evidence to the SENT from a psychologist that the child needed access to a 24 hour curriculum. There was also clear evidence that many of the family's difficulties in caring for the child arose from their personal circumstances including inadequate housing and disability of a parent. The tribunal found that the school that the child was attending was providing for her special educational needs and upheld the LEA's nomination of it provided that the LEA sought assistance from social services for the family under s. 322 of the EA 1996. Held: The need for remedies to a family's personal circumstances could not come into the category of special education provision, the SENT had ample justification for concluding that an adequate education was being provided and that their apparent conditional conclusion was merely a way of expressing their views to the LEA about the help that the family needed. It was not open to the tribunal to direct the LEA in this way.
Education Act 1996 322
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Staffordshire County Council ex parte Reynolds [1998] EWHC Admin 121
30 Jan 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Gloucestershire County Council ex parte Noor Al-Koky (By Her Father and Next Friend Dr Al-Koky); Admn 4-Feb-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 142
 
G v Wakefield City Metropolitan District Council and Another Times, 10 February 1998
10 Feb 1998
QBD

Education
Power of Special Educational Needs Tribunal to consider child's home circumstances is limited unless they bear directly on educational issues.
Education Act 1996 322


 
 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 - Times, 10 April 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 226; [1998] ELR 319
 
Regina v Governors of Bacon's City Technology College ex parte W [1998] EWHC Admin 219
23 Feb 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Jennes Audrey Fishe Rosemary Hughes (Chair of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal) and London Borough of Hounslow [1998] EWHC Admin 240
26 Feb 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Funding Agency for Schools ex parte Essex County Council [1998] EWHC Admin 265
5 Mar 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
McKeown v Appeal Committee of Cardinal Heenan High School and Governors of Cardinal Heenan High School and Leeds City Council [1998] EWHC Admin 272
6 Mar 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G [1998] EWCA Civ 416
6 Mar 1998
CA

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
B v London Borough of Harrow and Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] EWCA Civ 508
20 Mar 1998
CA

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Board of Governors for South Bank University ex parte Mohammed [1998] EWCA Civ 526
24 Mar 1998
CA

Education
Challenge to marking of final examinations.
[ Bailii ]
 
Wilson-Copp v W Evans (Chairman of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal) v Gloucestershire County Council [1998] EWHC Admin 402
3 Apr 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v University College London (ex parte Dr Haitham Idriss) [1998] EWHC Admin 444
24 Apr 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
B v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Another Times, 26 March 1998; Gazette, 29 April 1998
29 Apr 1998
CA

Education
A local authority was to make allowance for resources available in neighbouring authority in considering proper use of own resources to allow parental wishes.
Education Act 1996 Sch 27 Para 3 (3) (b)

 
In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review R v Liverpool John Moores University ex parte Michelle Hayes [1998] EWCA Civ 847; [1998] ELR 261
18 May 1998
CA
Collins J
Education

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Catchpole v Buckinghamshire County Council and Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Admn 20-May-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 572

 
 T (a Minor), In Re 1997; HL 20-May-1998 - [1998] UKHL 20
 
Regina v East Sussex County Council Ex Parte Tandy Times, 21 May 1998; Gazette, 01 July 1998; Gazette, 17 June 1998; [1998] AC 714
21 May 1998
HL
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Education, Local Government
A Local Authority may not take its own financial constraints into account when assessing what was an appropriate education for a child in special needs case. It was wrong to try to turn a statutory duty into a power or a discretion. Ordinarily cost, where relevant, will be a matter to be taken into account by a local authority when considering its response to an assessed need rather than at the stage of assessment. It is desirable to keep these two stages separate. Neither the cost of providing accommodation nor the availability of resources have any bearing on what is or is not reasonably practicable as to permit this would downgrade the duty into a discretionary power.
Education Act 1996 19(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Thomson-Car Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Sherwin [1998] EWHC Admin 611
5 Jun 1998
Admn

Education
Appeal from the decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Wood v City of Westminster and Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Admn 8-Jun-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 612
 
Governors of Whalley Range High School v Coombs [1998] EWCA Civ 989
12 Jun 1998
CA

Education

[ Bailii ]

 
 S v South Gloucestershire County Council and Confrey; Admn 19-Jun-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 653; [2000] ELR 315
 
Baxter v Bristol City Council and Clark, Chair of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] EWHC Admin 748
14 Jul 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Beddis v Gloucestershire County Council, Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] EWHC Admin 767
21 Jul 1998
Admn
Mr Justice Sullivan
Education
Gilliatt The parents of a child with dyslexia appealed against the decision of the LEA not to nominate an independent specialist school. The LEA preferred a mainstream school with additional support. The court held that the Tribunal was under a duty to consider parental preference although it was not binding on them any more than on the LEA. It should in its reasons deal with the relative appropriateness of competing proposals and consider the alternative school preferred by the parents. The tribunal erred in concluding that it was not necessary to consider the alternative if the LEA proposal would meet the child's needs. However, this made no difference to the validity of their conclusion given that the appellant had not put sufficient evidence about the merits of her proposal before the tribunal.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Singh v Bracknell Forest Borough Council (Formerly the Royal County of Berkshire) and Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Admn 24-Jul-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 780
 
Governing Body of Shenfield High School v Ian Guttridge [1998] EWCA Civ 1310
28 Jul 1998
CA

Contempt of Court, Education

[ Bailii ]
 
White v Aldridge Qc and London Borough of Ealing [1998] EWHC Admin 815
30 Jul 1998
Admn

Education
Appeals against special education needs statements - autistic boys.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 London Borough of Hackney v Beverley Silaydin; Admn 20-Aug-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 852
 
Regina v Portsmouth City Council ex parte F (By His Father and Next Friend) [1998] EWHC Admin 857
25 Aug 1998
Admn
Tucker J
Education
Complaint at refusal to prepare statement of special educational needs for gifted child.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hackney London Borough Council v Silyadin Times, 17 September 1998
17 Sep 1998
QBD

Education
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.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Portsmouth Council ex parte Faludy Times, 17 September 1998
17 Sep 1998
QBD

Education
First degree courses are quite outside the scope of special need assessments, and a local authority was free to refuse to provide an assessment of a child with a view to making arrangements for education at that level.
Education Act 1996 1

 
Bartley v Worcestershire County Council and Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] EWHC Admin 890
23 Sep 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [1998] EWHC Admin 932
7 Oct 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
'S' v Cardiff City Council M Tudur, Chair of Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] EWHC Admin 950
13 Oct 1998
Admn
Mr Justice Tucker
Education
Gilliatt Parents of a child with a dyslexic condition appealed against the LEA's refusal to provide a statement. The LEA contended that the child's needs could be met within resources normally available to mainstream schools. There was an issue between the parents and the LEA as to the severity of the child's learning disability, the parents believing it to be serious. The tribunal failed to make a finding on this issue but rejected the parents' case. Held: The parents could not understand from the reasons given why their appeal had failed. The tribunal had not properly dealt with the key issue: whether a statement was needed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Schools Appeals Tribunal of Wakefield Diocesan Board of Education ex parte Jenner [1998] EWHC Admin 951
13 Oct 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Cheshire County Council ex parte W [1998] EWHC Admin 977
19 Oct 1998
Admn
Laws LJ
Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Angela White v Trevor Aldridge Qc (President of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal) and London Borough of Ealing [1998] EWCA Civ 1610
26 Oct 1998
CA

Education
Application for leave to appeal against special education needs statement - granted.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v University for Central England ex parte Iqbal Sandhu [1998] EWHC Admin 1017
28 Oct 1998
Admn

Education
Challenge to refusal of University to award a degree.
[ Bailii ]

 
 C v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Others; Admn 3-Nov-1998 - [1999] Ed CR 625; [1998] EWHC Admin 1029; [1999] ELR 5
 
Pamela Helen Phelps v Mayor and Burgesses London Borough of Hillingdon Times, 09 November 1998; Gazette, 25 November 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1686; [1999] 1 WLR 500; [1998] ELR 38
4 Nov 1998
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Professional Negligence, Education, Limitation
The plaintiff claimed damages for the negligent failure of an educational psychologist employed by a local authority to identify that the plaintiff was dyslexic. Held: An educational psychologist has no duty of care to a child, as opposed to her employer, in failing to diagnose dyslexia which was not an injury but a congenital condition: (Evans LJ) "dyslexia is not itself an injury and I do not see how failure to ameliorate or mitigate its effects can be an injury." No economic loss damages occurred until the psychologist adopted a particular duty to the child.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Warman [1999] ELR 81; [1998] EWHC Admin 1078
19 Nov 1998
Admn
Lord Justice Rose
Education, Crime
A fifteen year old girl absented herself from school when she went to live with a boyfriend at an address which was not known to her mother. The justices acquitted the mother for failing to secure her attendance at school on the basis of "any unavoidable cause" but the prosecutor’s appeal to the Divisional Court was allowed for the same reasons as in Jenkins v Howels and Crump v. Gilmore, both of which were followed. Held: The construction placed of this statutory provision in the authorities makes the conclusion inescapable that the circumstances did not give rise to unavoidable cause for the child’s absence from school.
Education Act 1993 444
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
White v Trevor Aldridge Qc (President of the Special Needs Tribunal) and London Borough of Ealing [1998] EWCA Civ 1887
2 Dec 1998
CA

Education
Appeal against special education needs statement - autistic boys.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v University of West of England ex parte Helen Maddock [1998] EWHC Admin 1133
10 Dec 1998
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.