Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[3] It was agreed that, in terms of the 2004 Act, the pursuers had at all material times the obligation to provide for the additional support needs of the children identified in the pleadings. Section 4(1) of the 2004 Act provides, subject to qualifications that are immaterial for present purposes:
needs for whose education the authority are responsible, make adequate and efficient provision for such additional support as is required by that child or young person..."
"In this Act, references to a child ... for whose school education an education authority are responsible are to any child ... being, or about to be, provided with school education -
It follows that by whichever mechanism an authority becomes responsible for the school education of children and young persons, it has obligations under the 2004 Act to those children to provide for their additional support needs.
"It is not possible to calculate expenditure per pupil in special education. Expenditure in this category includes additional support for pupils in mainstream schools as well as funding of special schools, and in some cases covers funding for pupils in neighbouring authorities' special schools or additional funding of their support in their mainstream schools ... "
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.