[align=left]
Lucie M v Worcestershire County Council & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 28, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1292 (Admin)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Friday, June 28, 2002
Before
MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between
LUCIE M
Appellant
and
(1) WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
(2) WILLIAM EVANS
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr John Friel (instructed by Elaine Maxwell & Co) for the Appellant
Mr Clive Sheldon (instructed by the Legal Department, Worcestershire CC) for the First Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown Copyright ©
20
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins:
I Introduction
1. J M is now about 13½ years old and lives in Malvern, Worcestershire. He has severe learning difficulties, and his parents (his mother being the appellant) are dissatisfied with a decision of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), the effect of which is that he will have to attend a special school, run by the local educational authority ("the Authority"). The parents (and also J) want him to go to a privately run specialist school in Devon, F College, which has a much smaller number of pupils and can provide the direct occupational and speech and language therapy which they say he requires. The cost to the local authority of sending J to F College would be between £57,000 and £75,000 p.a. 2. The challenge to the decision of the Tribunal is centred on the rejection of the case put forward on his behalf that he should receive direct therapy by an occupational therapist, that he should receive direct speech and language therapy, and that The schoolwas unsuitable for J's needs. In particular it was said that the Tribunal had not taken proper account of the evidence that he would not go to the school and could not be persuaded to go there, and that the school did not have full provision to meet his needs, because it was the Authority's policy not to provide direct speech therapy, and there were no adequate facilities available to provide occupational therapy. The main focus of the challenge was on lack of adequate reasoning. But it was also suggested that in relation to its findings on occupational therapy the...
[/align]
المفضلات