Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child): Admn 20 Oct 2000

The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to 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.’


Jack Heatson QC


Times 20-Oct-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390




Education Act 1996 324(5)(a)(ii), 19 509


CitedRegina v London Borough of Havering ex parte ‘K’ Admn 20-Aug-1997
A statement of special education needs stated in Part IV that the child’s mother was to be responsible for providing transport at her own expense. She subsequently became unable to maintain the transport provision due to her personal circumstances . .
CitedSurrey County Council v Ministry of Education 1953
The council had a scheme whereby for those who lived more than the walking distance from a school, only transport from their homes to the walking distance would be free. The scheme failed because transport has to be to and from school. A local . .
CitedRegina v Devon County Council, ex parte George HL 1989
A child lived 2.8 miles from school. The journey was rural and unlit. Whe he was 8, the education authority withdrew free transport saying it was practicable for a parent to walk with him.
Held: The decision whether to offer support was that . .
CitedRegina v East Sussex County Council Ex Parte T QBD 29-Apr-1997
Financial constraints on a local authority may be is relevant as between a choice of provisions but not as to whether to make provision at all. The court is not the arbiter of what constitute suitable arrangements and the decision as to suitability . .
CitedRobert Duhaney White v London Borough of Ealing and Special Educational Needs Tribunal Admn 8-Jul-1997
Gilliatt The court heard three separate appeals from decisions of SENTs where parents wished their autistic children to attend the Boston Higashi School, USA which involved a residential placement. Fees to attend . .
CitedJenkins v Howells KBD 1949
A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the . .
CitedRe C (a minor) CA 1994
The question was whether a school which was not that of parental choice could be regarded as suitable or, to put it the other way round, whether free transport had to be provided where a parent had chosen a school which was not the nearest to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88513