Comerford v. Minister for Education [1996] IEHC 48; [1997] 2 ILRM 134 (20th December, 1996)

Comerford v. Minister for Education [1996] IEHC 48; [1997] 2 ILRM 134 (20th December, 1996)

From December 1995 onwards, the Respondents failed in their constitutional duty to provide for a suitable primary education for the applicant, as recommended by expert assessment, thus depriving him of his constitutional rights under Articles 40 and 42.

Citation
[1996] IEHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Stuart Comerford; First Respondent: Minister for Education; Second Respondent: Department of Education; Notice Party: Eastern Health Board
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted that the Respondents failed in their constitutional duty to provide suitable primary education for the applicant; no further orders made at this time; liberty to apply granted; matter listed for mention for progress report.
Legal Topics
Right to Education, Constitutional Rights of the Child, State Obligations, Parental Rights and Duties, Child Care Proceedings
Constitutional Law Education Law Child Law Right to Education Constitutional Rights of the Child State Obligations Parental Rights and Duties Child Care Proceedings

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Comerford

Applicant

Minister for Education

First Respondent

Department of Education

Second Respondent

Eastern Health Board

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State failed in its constitutional duty to provide for the applicant's education under Articles 40 and 42 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was discriminated against compared to other children
  3. 3 Whether the Eastern Health Board fulfilled its constitutional obligations under Article 42.5

Ratio Decidendi

From December 1995 onwards, the Respondents failed in their constitutional duty to provide for a suitable primary education for the applicant, as recommended by expert assessment, thus depriving him of his constitutional rights under Articles 40 and 42.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that the Respondents failed in their constitutional duty to provide suitable primary education for the applicant; no further orders made at this time; liberty to apply granted; matter listed for mention for progress report.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Respondents failed in their constitutional duty to provide suitable primary education for the applicant.
  • Liberty to apply granted to both sides.