Education Law in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Barnet London Borough Council, ex parte Nilish Shah
    • House of Lords
    • 16 Dec 1982

    Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the statutory framework or the lesal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning, I unhesitatingly subscribe to the view that "ordinarily resident" refers to a man's abode in a particular place or country which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whether of short or long duration.

    This is not to say that the "propositus" intends to stay where he is indefinitely; indeed his purpose, while settled, may be for a limited period. Education, business or profession, employment, health, family, or merely love of the place spring to mind as common reasons for a choice of regular abode. All that is necessary is that the purpose of living where one does has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled.

  • Ali v Head and Governors of Lord Grey School
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Mar 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?

    The correct approach is first to ask whether there was a denial of a Convention right. In the case of article 2 of the First Protocol, that would have required a systemic failure of the educational system which resulted in the respondent not having access to a minimum level of education. As there was no such failure, that is the end of the matter.

  • M and Another v London Borough of Newham and Others; X and Others v Bedfordshire County Council
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Jun 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 Nov 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
    • 10 Nov 1981

    This case brings us face to face with a new exercise in statutory interpretation. 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. But it must be remembered that Parliament in March 1962, when this statute was passed, had no idea of what was to come in the next 20 years.

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