Equality Act exemption discriminates against autistic children
C & C v Governing Body [2018] UKUT 269 (AAC)
Regulations under the Equality Act 2010, exempting children who have a “tendency to physical abuse” from its protection, were unlawful as they were in breach of ECHR, art 14.
Upper Tribunal allows appeal in relation to special education provision of speech and language therapy
GK v North Somerset Council [2018] UKUT 259 (AAC)
This was an appeal centring on the making of special educational provision outside term time. The appellant brought the appeal on two grounds: 1) that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in determining that special educational provision (in this instance speech and language therapy) is limited to provision in term time and 2) the Tribunal also […]
Upper Tribunal allows appeal in relation to maintenance of EHC Plan
B & M v Cheshire East Council [2018] UKUT 232 (AAC)
This appeal considered a decision by the local authority not to maintain the claimant’s EHC Plan, for their severely disabled child. The Tribunal allowed the appeal having found that the First-tier Tribunal’s “approach to the question whether a day care placement, funded by the authority’s adult social department, would deliver the special educational provision required […]
Tribunal entitled to specify independent school in EHC plan
London Borough of Hillingdon v SS & Ors (SEN) [2017] UKUT 0250 (AAC)
The Court held that the ability of a local authority or first-tier tribunal to specify a school or institution under the Children and Families Act 2014, s 40(2) was not restricted to those listed in s 38(3).
Cost of prosecuting parent doesn’t fall under the Education Act 1996, s 9
LB Richmond upon Thames v AC (SEN) [2017] UKUT 0173 (AAC)
X’s mother wanted her to attend an independent special school A, whereas the local authority considered that school H, a maintained mainstream school, was suitable and that whilst school A would meet X’s needs, it would constitute unreasonable public expenditure. Held that the Education Act 1996, s9 does not require the cost of a prosecuting a parent who breaches school attendance legislation to be taken into account.