Gilliatt A parent of a child with cerebral palsy challenged the decision of the LEA to nominate a particular school for the child, whereas the parent preferred an alternative placement. Her argument was the school recommended by the LEA was unable to provide speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. It had been plain from the outset that this was her argument. However, the President of the SENT indicated by letter that he would not allow this argument to be run unless the notice of appeal was amended and ultimately refused to allow the notice to be amended. The court held that no amendment was required and the LEA had been quite able to work out what the parent’s argument was. The President’s decision was thereby quashed. The court also expressed a view in passing that it seemed clear from the evidence that the parents concerns about the lack of appropriate provision for the child at the LEA’s preferred school were justified.
Judges:
Mr Justice Popplewell
Citations:
[1996] EWHC Admin 366
Links:
Education
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136914
