Education Law in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Ali v Head and Governors of Lord Grey School
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Março 2006

    There is no Convention guarantee of education at or by a particular institution. The test, as always under the Convention, is a highly pragmatic one, to be applied to the specific facts of the case: have the authorities of the state acted so as to deny to a pupil effective access to such educational facilities as the state provides for such pupils?

  • Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon
    • House of Lords
    • 27 Julho 2000

    It is sometimes said that there has to be an assumption of responsibility by the person concerned. That phrase can be misleading in that it can suggest that the professional person must knowingly and deliberately accept responsibility. The phrase means simply that the law recognises that there is a duty of care. It is not so much that responsibility is assumed as that it is recognised or imposed by the law.

    This seems to me to be, on its face, an example par excellence of a situation where the law will regard the professional as owing a duty of care to a third party as well as his own employer. The duty to the pupil would march hand in hand with the professional's responsibilities to his own employer. He should exercise reasonable skill and care when assessing the child and then advising the education authority.

  • Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Novembro 2000

    In order to come within the Act the grant has to be for one or more of the three purposes mentioned in section 2 i.e. for the education of poor persons, or for the residence of a schoolmaster or schoolmistress, or otherwise for the purposes of the education of such poor persons in religious and useful knowledge.

  • M and Another v London Borough of Newham and Others; X and Others v Bedfordshire County Council
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Junho 1995

    For these reasons I reach the conclusion that an education authority owes no common law duty of care in the exercise of the powers and discretions relating to children with special educational needs specifically conferred on them by the Act of 1981.

  • MK (Best Interests of Child) India
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 30 Novembro 2011

    If, at the other extreme, all the factors of relevance to the best interests of the child consideration (save for the child's and/or parent(s) own claim that they want to remain) point overwhelmingly to the child's interests being best served by him returning with his parent(s) to his country of origin (or to one of his parents being expelled leaving him to remain living here), then very little by way of countervailing considerations to do with immigration control etc. may be necessary in order for the conclusion to be drawn that the decision appealed against was and is proportionate.

  • R v Barnet London Borough Council, ex parte Nilish Shah
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 Novembro 1981

    If we were to do that here, I feel I would apply the test submitted by Mr. Lester. The words "ordinarily resident" mean that the person must be habitually and normally resident here, apart from temporary or occasional absences of long or short duration. On that test all those students would qualify for a mandatory award.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT