Our High Court Cases

Below you will find a selection of the reported High Court judgments in which we/Douglas has been involved during these past 10 years or so. These are either Judicial Reviews or Appeals against SENDIST/SEND Tribunal decisions. We have provided a brief summary of the issues in each case for easy reference.

We hope that sharing these judgments will help you get an understanding of the some of the issues which can be involved in these types of cases.

• R v Dame Alice Owens School ex parte S [1998] (admissions authority cannot deviate from published admissions criteria)
• Skilbeck v Williamson & Oxfordshire CC [1999] (consideration of granting extensions of time for lodging statutory appeals)
• Rhondda Cynon Taff v SENDIST & V [2001] (Tribunal need not give an LEA a further opportunity for proposing further schools if theirs is found to be inappropriate)
• A v SENDIST & LB Barnet [2003] (LEA/Tribunal must have regard to the significant impact of a child’s religion on their SEN)
• M v SENDIST & Salford CC [2004] (Tribunal's decision must be quashed if they may have misunderstood evidence)
• MH v SENDIST & LB Hounslow [2004] [Court of Appeal] (guidance given on the applicability and interpretation to be given to section 316 Education Act (as amended) - the parental right to request mainstream education for a child with SEN)
• VK v Norfolk CC & SENDIST [2004] (guidance given as to how to determine less favourable treatment, the appropriate comparators and the defence of justification in disability discrimination education cases)
• W v SENDIST & LB Hillingdon [2005] (Tribunal's decision must be quashed where it does not set out clearly the issues as to cost and the evidence on these issues where there is a dispute)
• R (on the application of Bradshaw) v Schools Adjudicator [2005] (summary reasons are sufficient for a decision to approve the closure of a special school)
• Essex CC v SENDIST & S [2006] (importance of parental preference; guidance on meaning of inefficient use of resources).
• R (on the application of M) v East Sussex CC (2009) (confirming the requirement to amend statements of SEN by 15 February in the academic year before 'phase transfer' and clarifying the requirement to name a 'type of school' in a statement.) [see also May 2009- Important Judgment For Children With SEN']
• K v LB Hillingdon (2011) (confirming the need for the Tribunal to also consider the non-educational needs (i.e social care and health) of a child and to assess the wider benefits of a residential school placement) [see also March 2011- 'Another Important Judgment For Children With SEN']

Back To Top