Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Another, Ex Parte JC (A Child): CA 10 Aug 2000

The restrictions placed upon the maximum class sizes in turn restricted the rights of parents to appeal against refusal of a school place. It is for the parent to satisfy the original admissions committee and the appeal committee of the need for a place. There are two only grounds of appeal. An application to judicially review the decision of the education authority should be normally in the name of the parent, not the child.
Parents whose child has not been admitted to the school of their preference have a right of appeal to an appeals committee. Kennedy LJ said: ‘I am satisfied that where a parent wishes to challenge a local education authority or an appeals committee in relation to the handling of a parent’s expression of preference as to the school at which his or her child should attend it is the parent and not the child who should mount the challenge. I accept that the child may have a sufficient interest to mount a challenge, and in some exceptional cases it may be appropriate for the child to make the application for permission to apply for judicial review, but normally, as it seems to me, the only reason why the application is made in the name of the child is to obtain legal aid, and to enable the parents to protect themselves in relation to costs. That I regard as an abuse. Our legal system works upon the basis that those who seek a remedy should expose themselves in relation to costs. If the device is used in future, permission to apply for judicial review may well be refused on that ground.’
Ward LJ commented that it is the parents’ appeal, not the child’s, he said: ‘The system is open to abuse if the child applies for legal aid and that abuse must be curtailed.’
Kennedy, Wardd LJJ
Times 10-Aug-2000, Gazette 31-Aug-2000, [2001] ELR 21, [2001] LGR 146
Education Act 1996 41
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Appeal from – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child) QBD 26-Apr-2000
    An appeal to the local education authority against a decision not to grant a place at the parents choice of primary school, because it would require additional resources to provide for larger class sizes, is by way of review, and not by way of a . .
    Times 26-Apr-00

Cited by:

  • Cited – B and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee QBD 13-Sep-2002
    The applicants sought through their litigation friends to oppose the decision of the respondent to close their junior school. The respondent said the proceedings were an abuse, having been brought in the children’s names solely to obtain legal aid. . .
    Times 22-Oct-02
  • Appealed to – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex Parte C (A Child) QBD 26-Apr-2000
    An appeal to the local education authority against a decision not to grant a place at the parents choice of primary school, because it would require additional resources to provide for larger class sizes, is by way of review, and not by way of a . .
    Times 26-Apr-00
  • Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2) SC 11-Dec-2013
    The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to . .
    [2013] UKSC 78, [2014] 1 WLR 55, [2014] 3 Costs LO 319, [2014] 1 All ER 760, [2014] 2 CMLR 25, [2014] Env LR 17, UKSC 2010/0030

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.85460