Interlocutory application for mandatory injunction brought by the mother of an autistic four-year old against the Minister for Education and Science to provide her child a free and appropriate pre-school education. Right to free primary education appropriate to his needs; Article 13 (Effective Remedy) and Article 2 of the First Protocol (Right to Education) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act.
It is not clear how this case ended substantively.
This decision was seen as significant because the plaintiff was granted a mandatory order by the High Court in the context of a socio-economic right claim – albeit at the interlocutory stage. Such a development was considered highly unlikely following the Supreme Court’s refusal to do so in the earlier cases in Sinnott v Minister for Education and T.D. v Minister for Education. It should be borne in mind that this case turned primarily on the enforcement of the applicants statutory rights, which the majority in Sinnott had intimated would be different to seeking a mandatory order to enforce a constitutional right.