Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 182 (May)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Langstaff J

Representation David Wolfe (instructed by Fisher Meredith) for the claimant.
  James Presland (instructed by Isabella Freeman) for the authority.
  Sam Grodzinski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the tribunal.
  Peggy Ekeledo, solicitor advocate (instructed by Burke Niazi Solicitors & Advocates) for the child.
  Helen Mountfield (instructed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission Legal Department) for the intervener.
Judgment Dates: 14 May 2008

Catchwords

Education - Special educational needs - Educational provision - Assessment for purposes of updating statement of special educational needs - Child being 'looked after' by local education authority - Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal directing authority to make child available for assessments - Authority refusing to comply with direction on basis that child's welfare would be compromised - Whether authority entitled to refuse compliance.

The Case

In the instant case, the local education authority's refusal to comply with a direction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, namely that the claimant's child had to be subjected to further assessments, for the purposes of updating her statement of special educational needs, could not be justified on the basis that the child's welfare would be compromised given that the assessments would be 'intrusive, unnecessary and abusive'. The starting point was that the tribunal's direction had been rational and valid. Had the authority wished to object to the tribunal's direction, the proper course would have been for it to have mounted a challenge either by way of an appeal to the High Court, an application for judicial review, or on points of law before the Court of Appeal.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.