White and Another v Ealing London Borough Council and Another ; Richardson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Another ; Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Another v Finn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1997 |
| Date | 08 July 1997 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Dyson
Education - special needs - duty to pay for named school
There was no absolute duty upon either an education authority or the Special Educational Needs Tribunal to name a particular school in a statement of special educational needs but where a school was named the education authority was under a duty to arrange and pay for the school even if it was not maintained.
Mr Justice Dyson so held in the Queen's Bench Division when dismissing appeals by: Simon and David White against Ealing London Borough Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Ben Richardson against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and the tribunal; and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and the tribunal against James Finn.
Mr Nicholas Bowen for Simon and David White; Mr John Friel for Ealing; Miss Cherie Booth, QC and Mr Clive Lewis for Ben Richardson and James Finn; Miss Elizabeth Appleby, QC and Miss Marie Demetriou for Solihull; Miss Natalie Lieven for the tribunal.
MR JUSTICE DYSON said that Simon and David White, twins, Ben Richardson and James Finn were children who suffered from autism. The appropriate education authority issued statements accepting each child had special educational needs.
The parents of the children wished them to attend the Boston Higashi School in the United States of America, a non-maintained school. None of the education authority statements named that school as appropriate to cater for the special educational needs of the child concerned.
Two of the children, Ben Richardson and James Finn, were placed at the Boston Higashi School by their parents. The school fees were paid partly by each child's parents and partly by charitable fund raising.
All the children lodged appeals, inter alia, against the contents of their statements to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal.
In respect of Ben Richardson, the tribunal had held that a residential placement was not necessary and amended the statement "Ben should attend a special school…in a non-residential setting".
In respect of Simon and David White the tribunal amended their statements to delete reference to a particular school and substituting a description of the type of school which was appropriate to their special educational...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Ivanauskiene) v Special Adjudicator
...Adjudicator on the basis of existing law later reversed by a Higher Court - R v Sec of State for the Home Dept ex parte Robinson Times, Aug 1, 1997 [1998] QB 929 Asylum applicant not bound by concession An applicant for asylum was not bound by a concession made before a special adjudicator ......
-
Richardson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council White v Ealing London Borough Council ; Hereford and Worcester County Council v Lane
...The Court of Appeal so held in (i) dismissing appeals by Mrs Richardson and Mrs White from the dismisal by Mr Justice Dyson (The Times August 1, 1997) of their appeals from decisions of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal which, on appeal by the appellants, had amended statements of spec......
-
Michael John Pelling (Petitioner/Applicant) v Veronica Nana Bruce-Williams
...is used when it is appropriate to do so. In that regard Dr Pelling has referred us to the case of Ward v Lefever & Anor, reported in The Times, 1 August 1997. In that case I indicated that if one is not careful the use of the jurisdiction can result in subordinate or satellite litigation wh......
-
Protecting the press from privacy.
...See 955 P.2d at 475 (discussing On Scene). On Scene is now defunct, see Maura Dolan, The Right to Know vs. the Right to Privacy, L.A. TIMES, Aug. 1, 1997, at A1, although similar programs such as Cops and Emergency 911 continue to air. See (48) See id. (explaining that Ruth and her son were......
-
The Terrorist Informant
...154. United States v. Khalil, 214 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000). 155. John Kifner, Arrested Men Often Seen, Little Known in Park Slope, N.Y. Times, Aug. 1, 1997, at 156. Khalil, 214 F.3d at 115; Kifner, supra note 155. 157. Khalil, 214 F.3d at 115. 158. Id. 159. David Cole and Jules Lobel, Less S......
-
Liberty of expression in Ireland and the need for a constitutional law of defamation.
...damages, but also to a contempt of court action. Marie O'Halloran, Dunphy Must Attend High Court for Contempt Hearing, IRISH TIMES, Aug. 1, 1997, at 7, available in 1997 WL (134.) See COMMISSION PAPER, supra note 99, at 116. (135.) See IRISH LAW OF DEFAMATION, supra note 89, at 241. (136.) ......