Spotlight
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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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