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 section 312(4) of the 1996 Act is wide enough to include naming a particular school, it is not implicit in the subsection that a particular school must be named; and that section 324(4)(b) does not impose a duty on the local education authority to name a particular school, it merely confers on it a discretion whether or not to do so.
Judges:
Beldam LJ
Citations:
Times 10-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 226, [1998] ELR 319
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – White and Another v Ealing London Borough Council and Another etc CA 1-Aug-1997
There is no duty to name a school in a special needs statement, but the education authority must pay for the school where one is named. . .
Cited by:
Distinguished – Hackney London Borough Council v Silyadin QBD 17-Sep-1998
The Special Educational Needs Tribunal should not order a Local Authority to provide services which went beyond the special needs of the child. No need in rejecting Authority’s proposal to accept parent’s alternate choice. . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of MH v the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, the London Borough of Hounslow CA 25-Jun-2004
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 . .
See Also – White and Another v Ealing London Borough Council and Another etc CA 1-Aug-1997
There is no duty to name a school in a special needs statement, but the education authority must pay for the school where one is named. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Education
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143704
