C, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Brent [2003] EWHC 1590 (Admin) (24 June 2003)

C, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Brent [2003] EWHC 1590 (Admin) (24 June 2003)

The Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to specify education otherwise than at a school for M because it found, on the evidence, that M's needs could be met in a school and SLC was not a school under the Act; no breach of natural justice occurred as the suitability of SLC was not a live issue.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1590 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: C; 1st Defendant: Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal; 2nd Defendant: London Borough of Brent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal on Point of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Educational Needs, Appeal on Point of Law, Education Act 1996, Tribunal Procedure, Parental Wishes in Education, Natural Justice
Education Law Administrative Law Disability Law Special Educational Needs Appeal on Point of Law Education Act 1996 Tribunal Procedure Parental Wishes in Education +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Claimant

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal

1st Defendant

London Borough of Brent

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal on Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in refusing to specify education otherwise than at a school for M
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself regarding section 319 of the Education Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of natural justice in the Tribunal's approach to evidence about SLC

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to specify education otherwise than at a school for M because it found, on the evidence, that M's needs could be met in a school and SLC was not a school under the Act; no breach of natural justice occurred as the suitability of SLC was not a live issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed