The child was subject to a statement of special educational needs. His parents expressed a preference for one mainstream school, but the authority allocated him to another. The court had been requested to give guidance on the meaning and effect of the sections at issue.
Held: The process for recognising parental choice differed from the system for choosing a mainstream school. Parents had a qualified right to insist on their preference, but if any of the conditions were met, the authority was not bound to specify the same school. The issues arising as to the statement arose only if the parents rights were exhausted, either by unsuitability or incompatibility.
Judges:
Lord Justice May Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 770, Times 08-Jul-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Richardson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Special Educational Needs Tribunal; White v London Borough of Ealing Special Needs Tribunal and Hereford and Worcester County Court v Karen Lane CA 12-Feb-1998
The need to specify the special educational needs for a child did not necessarily mean that any particular school must be nominated, nor even that the need must be met through a school. Whilst the definition of ‘special educational provision’ in . .
Cited – Bromley London Borough Council v Special Educational Needs Tribunal and Others CA 26-May-1999
The needs of a child, as to educational and non-educational overlapped, and accordingly, it was within the discretion of the Special Needs Tribunal to include among the educational needs of a child others within that overlap. Physiological, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198411