C & Ors (Minors) [2008] NIQB 16 (12 February 2008)

C & Ors (Minors) [2008] NIQB 16 (12 February 2008)

The Board did not unlawfully fetter its discretion or adopt an unlawful policy. It made appropriate inquiries and relied on professional advice regarding quantification. The statutory framework and case law do not require quantification in every case; flexibility is permitted where justified by the child's needs. The application fails as the ground for judicial review is not made out.

Citation
[2008] NIQB 16
Parties
Applicant: C; Applicant: McD; Applicant: McG; Respondent: Education and Library Board; Interested Party: Health and Social Services Trust
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
12 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Special Educational Needs, Speech and Language Therapy, Statements of Special Educational Needs, Statutory Interpretation, Discretion and Fettering, Quantification of Provision
Education Law Administrative Law Disability Law Special Educational Needs Speech and Language Therapy Statements of Special Educational Needs Statutory Interpretation Discretion and Fettering +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

McD

Applicant

McG

Applicant

Education and Library Board

Respondent

Health and Social Services Trust

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion by adopting unquantified speech and language therapy advice from the Trust in statements of special educational needs
  2. 2 Whether the Board is legally required to quantify speech and language therapy provision in statements
  3. 3 Whether the Board's practice amounts to an unlawful policy contrary to statutory requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Board did not unlawfully fetter its discretion or adopt an unlawful policy. It made appropriate inquiries and relied on professional advice regarding quantification. The statutory framework and case law do not require quantification in every case; flexibility is permitted where justified by the child's needs. The application fails as the ground for judicial review is not made out.

Court Disposition

application refused