Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

NEGLIGENCE: Crowley v Surrey County Council, Kingston and Richmond Health Authority and Others [2008] EWHC 1102 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : crowley-v-surrey-county-council-kingston-and-richmond-health-authority-and-others-2008-ewhc-1102-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 20, 2008, 06:28 AM
Article ID : 88063

(Queen's Bench Division; Foskett J; 20 May 2008)

The claim was brought by a schizophrenic who had had a difficult and unhappy educational history until he began attending a special needs school at the age of 12. He alleged that relevant education and health authorities had failed to recognise and act appropriately in respect of his learning difficulties, and that if they had addressed his 'specific language disorder' when he was a young child he would have been better able to cope with his schizophrenia, which manifested itself when he was 19.

There had been some breaches of duty on the part of some of the defendants, and this was a child who had slipped through the net, but the fact that the child's needs had not been addressed actively and timeously could not be attributed to any individual or systematic negligence. The child had been assessed, on reasonable grounds, as not having a 'specific language disorder', which was the key diagnosis at the time when seeking a statement of special educational needs. Even if there had been some active and appropriate intervention it could not be established to the necessary standard that it would have made the kind of difference that would sound in damages. There had been some potential for conflict between the role of the authority's educational psychologist in examining and reporting on a child and in the decision-making process on whether the child meet the criteria for a statement of educational needs, which plainly had resource implications, but the practice could not be branded as negligent at the time.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from