HR, R (on the application of) v Medway Council

HR, R (on the application of) v Medway Council

The Defendant has made available suitable education for H at School A, which is reasonably practicable for her to attend. The decision that School A is suitable is not irrational or perverse and falls within the Defendant's margin of appreciation. There is no breach of section 19 of the Education Act 1996 or Article...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: HR (by her mother and litigation friend CR); Defendant: Medway Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Bring Judicial Review (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to bring a claim for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Duty to Provide Education, Special Educational Needs, Judicial Review Standards, Right to Education, Parental Wishes in Education, SENDIST Appeals
Education Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Statutory Duty to Provide Education Special Educational Needs Judicial Review Standards Right to Education Parental Wishes in Education +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HR (by her mother and litigation friend CR)

Claimant

Medway Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Bring Judicial Review (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is in breach of its statutory duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide suitable education to the Claimant pending the outcome of a SENDIST appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's actions violate Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to education)

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant has made available suitable education for H at School A, which is reasonably practicable for her to attend. The decision that School A is suitable is not irrational or perverse and falls within the Defendant's margin of appreciation. There is no breach of section 19 of the Education Act 1996 or Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR. The claim does not fall within the exceptional category where it would be unreasonable to expect the child to attend the school offered. Accordingly, permission to bring a claim for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to bring a claim for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Permission to bring a claim for judicial review is refused