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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 31 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
H v Kent County Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [2000] ELR 660
2000

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


 
Wandsworth London Borough Council v A Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1246
20 Jan 2000
CA
Buxton LJ
Education, Local Government
A was a parent of a child. The school complained of A's behaviour when visiting the school, and was refused a licence to enter the premises without being accompanied. The behaviour continued, and an injunction was obtained. Held: The order was discharged on appeal because it could not be shown that the headmaster had taken steps to obtain the parent's side of the situation before acting. There is a public interest both in securing a parent's access and in protecting the school and its teachers. Buxton LJ: "It is, however, clear that Miss A, and other parents, had some sort of licence to enter the school, by reason of its being the practice to permit them to do so." and the question was that if there was permission to enter the school as a parent, that was relevant to what procedures were immediately adopted before it could be withdrawn.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and another, ex parte H Times, 21 January 2000
21 Jan 2000
QBD
Elias J
Education, Local Government
The claimant had appealed to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. The authority had called two witnesses, as allowed and the representative also gave evidence. The claimants said that this was a breach of the rule allowing only two witnesses. Held: The rules were designed to try to achieve equality of arms between the parties. The restriction in the rules on the calling of more than two witnesses without the consent of the tribunal, did not operate to prevent the authority giving evidence through its representative advocate. This restored parity with a claimant.
Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 1995 (1995 No 3113) 29(1)

 
Regina v Muntham House School, Ex Parte R Times, 26 January 2000
26 Jan 2000
QBD

Judicial Review, Education
It was not possible to judicially review the admission policy of a private school. It was a private body, even though it received the bulk of its income from local authorities, and it was otherwise subject to strict statutory control.


 
 Burridge v London Borough of Harrow and others; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; [2000] UKHL 2; [2000] 1 All ER 876; [2000] 1 WLR 223

 
 Hardie v Edinburgh City Council; OHCS 16-Feb-2000 - Times, 16 February 2000
 
Regina v Metropolitan Borough of Wirral ex parte B [2000] EWHC Admin 295
17 Feb 2000
Admn

Education

Education Act 1996
[ Bailii ]

 
 Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance; ChD 22-Feb-2000 - Times, 22 February 2000
 
KL v Worcester County Council, Rosemary Hughes (Chair of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal) HC Admin 303
15 Mar 2000
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside; CA 14-Apr-2000 - Times, 03 May 2000; [2000] 3 All ER 752; [2000] EWCA Civ 129; [2000] 1 WLR 1988

 
 Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child); QBD 26-Apr-2000 - Times, 26 April 2000
 
S v Essex County Council and another Times, 10 May 2000
10 May 2000
QBD

Education
The Special Educational Needs Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal by a parent against the decision of an education authority to cease to hold an assessment that a child had special educational needs once the child reached the age of sixteen, and education was not compulsory. The definition of a child with such needs was different from the general definition under the Act, and defined such a child as being under nineteen, not, as for other purposes, sixteen.
Education Act 1996 Sch7 27 para11, 579(1), 312(5)


 
 Regina v Clark, Ex Parte Jd and Others; QBD 26-May-2000 - Times, 26 May 2000
 
Regina v University of Cambridge ex parte Persaud [2000] EWHC Admin 374
21 Jul 2000
Admn

Education

[ Bailii ]

 
 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 - Times, 28 July 2000; Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 47; [2001] 2 AC 619; [2000] 3 WLR 776; [2000] 4 All ER 504; (2000) 150 NLJ 1198
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Ex Parte National Union of Teachers Times, 08 August 2000
8 Aug 2000
QBD

Education, Employment, Administrative
The general power of the Secretary of State to promote education did not extend to provision for the terms and conditions of teachers' employment or establishing systems for the payment of higher rates of pay to teachers meeting performance standards. Reference to Parliament was necessary. The Secretary of State had not followed consultation procedures set down for the making of significant alterations to teachers contracts.
School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991


 
 Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child); CA 10-Aug-2000 - Times, 10 August 2000; Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2001] ELR 21; [2001] LGR 146

 
 Regina v South Bank University, Ex Parte Coggeran; CA 19-Sep-2000 - Times, 19 September 2000; Gazette, 19 October 2000
 
Regina v HM Treasury, Ex Parte University of Cambridge Times, 17 October 2000; C-380/98; [2000] All ER (EC) 920; [2000] 1 WLR 2514; [2000] EUECJ C-380/98
3 Oct 2000
ECJ

Education, European
When considering public law governed the procedural requirements for procurement contracts, the court had to consider whether body was financed 'for the most part' by public funds. The words referred to the majority of income, and the calculations of what was publicly financed was to include those sums received from government otherwise than for consideration by way of services or supplies. For an educational institution this would include funds by way of grants, but would not include payments for research and similar.
Council Directive 92/50 relating to the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, Ex Parte Mahmood and Another Times, 17 October 2000
17 Oct 2000
QBD

Health Professions, Education
It was proper for a professional body granting rights to practice by means of examination tests, to limit the number of attempts at such examinations. Although such a limit did operate as a restraint of trade, that restraint was justified in order to protect the public and maintain professional integrity. The maximum was not required to be imposed by statute, but it could not be said to be irrational.
Pharmacy Act 1954 16

 
Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Ex Parte Amraf Training Plc Times, 17 October 2000
17 Oct 2000
QBD

Education, Administrative
Although the department had registered a course for an eighty per cent subsidy for trainees, in the absence of knowledge of what fees would be charged, it remained open to the department later to withdraw that recognition when the amounts payable appeared not to represent value for money, and even though students had been accepted onto the course. The existing students had been allowed to complete the course, and the provider offered the opportunity to apply to re-register at a lower course fee, but had refused. Value for money was a relevant factor.

 
Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child) Times, 20 October 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 390
20 Oct 2000
Admn
Jack Heatson QC
Education, Judicial Review
The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome. Held: It was not open to a local authority to refuse to contribute to a child's travelling expenses to a school named in his statement, on the basis that he might attend another school nearby which was not named as appropriate in his statement of special educational needs, or to make attendance conditional upon an agreement regarding payment by the parents of travelling expenses. The council's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable since they had failed to consider the changes in the child's transport needs since the statement was made, and the parents' financial circumstances. Any bar to a judicial review operated against the parents not the child. "the matter must go back to the authority which must reconsider its decision giving proper consideration to all the changes of circumstances and not taking into account of its belief that G.A.'s needs could be met at a local school not named in the statement."
Education Act 1996 324(5)(a)(ii), 19 509
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Hertfordshire County Council ex parte A [2000] EWHC Admin 416
10 Nov 2000
Admn
Maurice Kay J
Education, Employment
The teacher appealed against his dismissal after allegations of his sexual abuse of boys in his care.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Governors of B School, ex parte W Times, 14 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000
14 Nov 2000
QBD

Education
A requirement that a school child be re-instated in school after exclusion, was a requirement of re-admission to the school, not full re-admission into classes. Re-instatement was not to be given any elaborate meaning. Things could not always be out back just as they were, and provided the child was being educated in the school, it could not be said that she was still excluded. However a blanket refusal by teaching unions and their members to teach the child bordered on irrational.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998

 
Regina v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Beaumont and others Times, 22 November 2000
22 Nov 2000
QBD

Local Government, Education
Local councillors who sat as governors of one school should not have voted on a motion regarding the closure of a neighbouring school. They had a clear, if indirect, financial interest in the issue and should have declared the interest and declined to vote. Membership of a school governors council was not listed in the Code of Practice, but the Code was not a complete list of interests which might be declarable.
National Code of Local Government Conduct (DoE Circular 8/90)

 
Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) Times, 09 January 2001; Gazette, 25 January 2001; [2001] Ch 669; [2000] EWCA Civ 460
24 Nov 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham
Education, Land, Limitation, Land
A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.
School Sites Act 1841
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re K (A Child) (Secure Accommodation Order: Right to Liberty) Times, 29 November 2000; Gazette, 15 December 2000; [2001] 1 FLR 526
29 Nov 2000
CA

Education, Children, Human Rights
An order providing that a child should stay in secure accommodation, was an order which restricted the child's liberty. A justification for such a restriction had to be brought within the exceptions listed in the article. Detention for educational supervision was permitted, and such supervision was not restricted to education in the sense of tuition in a school setting, but could be extended to include education in the more general sense of the exercise of parental rights by an authority in whose care the child was. Such an order did not therefore conflict with the child's article 5 right.
European Convention on Human Rights A5 - Children Act 1989 25 - Children Secure Accomodation Regulations 1991 (1991 No 1505)

 
P v Swansea City and County and Another Times, 01 December 2000
1 Dec 2000
QBD

Education
A pupil referral unit could exceptionally be named as an appropriate school for a child with special educational needs under part IV. There is no simple duty on the tribunal or the authority to specify a special needs school. Such a case might arise where the child had only a short time left in school and other solutions would be more disruptive. If the tribunal decided to not to follow the terms of a circular it, it should say why. That did not require it to state its reasons beyond a summary form.

 
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 05 December 2000
5 Dec 2000
QBD

Negligence, Education
A school had a duty to protect its pupils from bullying, but that duty stopped at the school gate. Even though the school might know of the bullying, it would not be practical, nor just, nor fair, nor reasonable, to extend its duty in such a way. The school should take effective defensive measure, as regards what happened within the school. It could choose to take pro-active measures beyond that, but it should not be obliged to do so.

 
W v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Another Times, 12 December 2000
12 Dec 2000
CA

Education
The tribunal office had been given information about facilities at an alternative school for autistic children, which information had been supplied by the child's mother. The Tribunal proceeded without knowing of the information, but the mother, representing herself, had assumed that they had seen the report. There was a possibility that they would have come to a different conclusion had they seen the report, and accordingly the decision had to be quashed. It was general in nature, but relevant. It was not necessary to show that the information would have led to a different decision, or even that it was likely that it would have been different.


 
 Holub and another v Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 20-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 343; [2001] 1 WLR 1359; [2001] ELR 401; [2001] Imm AR 282; [2001] INLR 219
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.