R v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Ali and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date14 February 1990
Date14 February 1990
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Queen's Bench Division

Before Lord Justice Woolf and Mr Justice Pill

Regina
and
Inner London Education Authority, Ex parte Ali and Another

Education - local education authority - provision of primary school places

No remedy over challenge on schools

The failure of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) to provide sufficient places for primary school children in the Tower Hamlets area was not open to attack in judicial review proceedings because, in the circumstances, there was no prospect of the court exercising its discretion to grant relief.

The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in dismissing a joint application for judicial review brought by Mortuz Ali and Kumar Murshid complaining that ILEA had failed to secure the availability of sufficient schools to provide primary education for all children in the Tower Hamlets area and seeking damages for the disruption caused to the education of the first applicant's child during the period when ILEA failed to provide him with a primary education.

The court was deciding the preliminary issue whether in view of the decision of the Secretary of State for Education that "there were no grounds for him to issue a direction to ILEA under section 99 of the Education Act 1944" (a decision which was not itself impugned) (a) the court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review complaining that ILEA had failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by section 8 of the 1944 Act and (b) the court should grant any relief in respect of such breach.

Section 8(1) of the Education Act 1944, as relevant, provides:

"(1) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools (a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils … and the schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education…".

Mr Frederic Reynold, QC and Mr Manjit Gill for the applicants; Mr James Goudie, QC and Miss Alice Robinson for ILEA.

LORD JUSTICE WOOLF said that it was important to recognize that the duty which section 8 placed upon the local education authority was in very broad and general terms. It was the counterpart of the even wider duty placed upon the secretary of state by section 1.

That type of duty could be described as a target duty. While...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • A v Lambeth London Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 November 2001
    ...20 Mr Goudie submits that s.17 creates no more than a "target" duty, an expression first used by Woolf LJ as he then was in Ex p. Ali (1990) 2 Admin LR 822, a case on s.8 of the Education Act 1944. S.8(1) provided so far as relevant: "It shall be the duty of every local education authority ......
  • Danns and another v Department of Health
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council and Others; X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
    ...Prison, ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58; [1991] 3 WLR 340; [1991] 3 All ER 733. R v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Ali (1990) 2 Admin LR 822. R v Mid-Glamorgan County Council, ex parte Greig, The Independent, 1 June Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297; [1979] 3 WLR 605; [1979] 3 All ER ......
  • Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 8 October 2004
    ...in accordance with well-known principles of public law. Reliance is placed on R v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Ali (1990) 2 Admin LR 822 and R (G) v Barnett London County Council (2003) 3 WLR 1194 (HL) at paragraph 91 per Lord Hope. (ix) The respondent cannot properly discharg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Justiciability of Resource Allocation
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 70-2, March 2007
    • 1 March 2007
    ...184; L.Clements,CommunityCare and theLaw (London: Legal ActionGroup,3rd ed, 2004) 11^13.113 RvInnerLondon Education Authority, ex p Ali(1990) 2 Admin LR822.114 R(A)vLambethLBC [2001]EWCACiv 1624,(2001) 4 CCLR486 at [23]; R(G)vBarnetLBC,n60above, at [92].115 RvBath MentalHealthcare NHSTrust ......

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