Summary
According to Section 298 each local education authority (LEA’) was required to make arrangements for the provision of suitable education for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of, amongst other things, illness, might not otherwise receive it. According to Section 298, suitable education,’ in relation to a child… means efficient education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have…. In October 1996 the education authority (EA’) advised parents of the appellant, a sick child, that, for financial reasons, the maximum number of hours per week of home tuition provided to her would be reduced. The appellant applied for judicial review of that decision, claiming, amongst other things, that in reaching its decision to cut the number of hours, the local authority took into account an irrelevant consideration. The House of Lords held that on a true construction of Section 298, the question of what was suitable education’ was to be determined purely with reference to educational considerations and that there was nothing in Section 298 to indicate that the resources available were relevant to that determination. Accordingly, there was no reason to treat the resources of a LEA as a relevant factor in determining what constituted suitable education’ for the purposes of Section 298. However, if there was more that one way of providing suitable education,’ the EA would be entitled to have regard to its resources in choosing between different ways of making such provision. The Court restored the order of the High Court quashing the EA’s decision to reduce the number of hours of home tuition provided.
Keywords: R v East Sussex ex parte. Tandy Cited as: [1998] AC 714, [1998] 2 All ER 769, [1998] 2 WLR 884, [1998] 2 FCR 221, Education, Right