Hill, R (on
the application of) v Bedfordshire Count Council [2008]EWCA Civ 661 (16 June
2008)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/661.rtf
Court
of Appeal had to consider is Martin’s (Hill) Statement of Special Educational
Needs had lapsed, or did the LEA wrongly determine to cease to maintain his
Statement without giving appropriate notice. Importantly, the Court of Appeal
found:
a)
For the
purposes of the Education Act 1996, a child does not have to be registered at a school.
b)
Where all relevant parties (including the child and
parents) agree that a Statement no longer serves any purpose because the child
is over 16 and at an Fe College, the Statement lapses as the LEA is no
longer responsible.
c) Where a ‘child’ is over school age and his
education has not been finally settled, one of the possibilities is that he may
return to school. In such cases he might continue (or return to) a suitable
school. In such cases, his Statement may not lapse.
d) Where a child is not currently registered
at a school but it is agreed by all parties that his education is not complete, the LEA should:
i) continue maintaining his Statement
ii) give formal notice to cease to maintain
his Statement, a decision which will allow an appeal to SENDIST
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/661.rtf