SIDDIQUI V UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD  EWHC 3150 (QB) The Claimant was a former history student at Brasenose College, Oxford. He sat his finals in June 2000 and obtained an Upper Second Class Bachelor of Arts Honours degree in history. He claimed against the University for negligent teaching leading to his failing to get a higher 2 :1 of a first-class degree, which he said that he would have otherwise achieved. The Claimant referred specifically to poor teaching of one part of the course, in large part due to unavailability of sufficient teaching staff at the time. He also alleged that the University inadequately handled certain medical information about him, with the consequence that it was not passed on to the right people and acted upon. The University applied to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment on the ground that it was hopelessly bad on the merits and also plainly time barred. Full report here.
XVW & YZA v GRAVESEND GRAMMAR SCHOOLS FOR GIRLS AND ADVENTURE LIFE SIGNS LTD  EWHC 575 (QB) The Claimants were two students who set off on a school trip to Belize in 2005, and were raped by a local man who was the apparent joint owner of the farm/resort where they had been staying. They sued the school and the second Defendant, a specialist company which helped organise the expedition. On their arrival in Belize, there was a change of plan. The group were recommended to a company called Maya Walks run by a man named Jimmy Juan and his son, Aaron who was a guide. Full report here.
WEBSTER AND OTHERS V RIDGEWAY FOUNDATION SCHOOL  EWHC 157 (QB) The Claimant was a 15 year old student in Year 11 at the Defendant’s school. He had been involved in an argument with a Year 10 boy and agreed to have a fight with this boy at the tennis courts. The younger boy telephoned his brother who brought other friends to the tennis courts. The Claimant was left with brain damage of some severity. The Second, Third and Fourth Claimants were members of the First Claimant’s family who had directly witnessed his state following the attack, and who suffered post traumatic stress disorder. Full report here.
CROWLEY V SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL  EWHC 1102 (QB) This was a claim for educational negligence. The Claimant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 19, and he was not capable of managing his own affairs. It was common ground that his schizophrenia would have developed regardless of his educational problems.There were five Defendants, the first of whom was Surrey County Council, the local education authority. The Second to Fifth Defendants were health authorities that had responsibility for the provision of speech therapy services within the area in which the Claimant resided. There were also a number of individuals against whom allegations of negligence had been made. Full report here.
RICHARD SMITH VERSUS HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL  EWCA Civ 246 The Claimant was born on the 21st October 1978 and was educated in Hampshire between September 1986 and February 1993, being placed in a special school in 1987. In around September 1986, the Claimant’s teacher suspected that his failure to progress was due to some form of learning difficulty and the Claimant was referred to an educational psychologist, who told the Claimant’s mother that he was “right handed but left sided”. There was no report made available but the Claimant was transferred to a special school in September 1987. Full report here.
MARR V THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH AND OTHERS  EWHC 1175 (QB) The Claimant brought damage for negligence in educational provision. He was born in August 1982 and reached school leaving age in 1998. He claimed that the negligence occurred at each of the three schools which he attended from the age of 8 until his permanent exclusion in February 1996. After that time he alleged that the Defendant was negligent in failing to ensure that he stayed on the waiting list for a Pupil Referral Unit. His case was that he had special educational needs and these had not been recognised or dealt with in a reasonably competent way. As a result the Claimant was functionally illiterate and unable to pursue the type of further education or employment which his other abilities would have permitted. Full report here.
PHELPS V LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON, ANDERTON V CLWYD COUNTY COUNCIL, IN RE G (A MINOR) BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, JARVIS v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL  UKHL 47 These were four educational negligence cases. Three concerned children who were dyslexic and the fourth was a child suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. In Phelps there had been a trial where the Claimant succeeded but was struck out by the Court of Appeal. In two others, “G” and “Jarvis” there was an application to strike out under Order 18 Rule 19 as being an abuse of the process of the court or as disclosing no cause of action. In “G”, the court struck out the claim, but it was reinstated by the Court of Appeal. In Jarvis the judge did not strike out the claim in negligence, but the Court of Appeal struck it out. Full report here.
PHELPS V LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON  EWCA Civ 1686 The Claimant was born on the 30th December 1973. In September 1978, she attended Hayes Park Infant School. Towards the end of 1980, she was referred to the School Psychological Service for lack of educational progress and was seen by an educational psychologist, who confirmed that she was underfunctioning and recommended “time, patience, interest and praise”. The Claimant was also referred to the Child Guidance Clinic and seen by a Mrs Jones, a psychiatric social worker and a Dr Urquart. On the 19th February 1981, Dr Urquart wrote to the Claimant’s GP, recommending psychotherapy. On the 21st May 1981, she was seen by a psychotherapist, Miss Kerbekian but due to illness, bereavement and holidays, Miss Kerbekian missed some 10 weekly sessions. The Claimant’s parents became frustrated and in November 1981, decided to discontinue psychotherapy. Full report here.
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.