Could one case against a local authority have opened the floodgates to claims over access to the education system?
The right to education has become an increasingly important source of claims against local authorities.
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgment on the issue in July. The case involved a severely disabled boy whose parents sought compensation after he was out of school for more than a year while the local authority, Essex county council, sought to find him a suitable placement.
The case centred on whether his absence from school was a breach of his human right to an education. The boy, known as ‘A’ was severely autistic, had epilepsy and suffered from severe learning difficulties.
While attending a day school for children with similar disabilities, his teachers grew increasingly worried about his behavioural problems and told his parents that he was likely to harm himself and other children.
In January 2002, the school notified his parents that he should be removed because he had become a danger to both other pupils and the staff. While his parents awaited a medical assessment, he remained at home, where he was provided with school work, speech and language therapy and activity sessions at his former school.
Following a medical assessment, he was provided with a residential programme at a specialist school where his behaviour improved.
In 2007, the boy brought a claim against the local education authority before the High Court on the basis that the time out of school amounted to a violation of his human right to education.
The claim was dismissed by the High Court, which ruled that the issue was whether he had been denied access to the education system not to a particular school.
The claim was also dismissed on the grounds that it had been brought outside the 12-month limitation period. Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court subsequently confirmed the decision in favour of Essex council.
Essex’s representative, the director of the public sector group at Weightmans, Andrew Cooper, says the judgment is an important one for local authorities. “Cases involving children with learning disabilities are complex and must be approached sensitively, with the needs of the child at the heart of any decision-making process.
“If A’s argument had been accepted, it would have created the potential for a flood of nominal damages claims against local authorities, all of which would inevitably have been pursued at significant public expense. The decision is a welcome one for local authorities and should mean an end to human rights damages claims in this area.”
