Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Minor is entitled to statutory review and assessment of needs arising from his autism condition
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in circumstances where the applicant requires a diagnosis of her son's autism condition to be set out in an Assessment of Needs pursuant to statute in order to access services, grant an order requiring the respondent to complete a review, to include any necessary assessments/reassessment, the court finding that: (1) the respondent had consented to a mandatory order of Court which clearly required assessments/re-assessments that were necessary; (2) the respondent was at all times aware that a private diagnosis of a child with autism would not be sufficient for services appropriate to his needs to be made available; and (3 ) the respondent was obliged to complete a review of the child’s Assessment of Need under an applicable statute.
High Court – judicial review – applicant was the mother of the second named applicant who had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder – applicant sought access to appropriate schooling and educational services for her son – applicant required a diagnosis of son’s condition to be set out in an Assessment of Needs under the Disability Act 2005 – applicant had difficulty in obtaining diagnosis from the respondent - applicant had brought previous judicial review proceedings – respondent submitted that the furnishing of a review had rendered the proceedings moot – respondent submitted that the case being made was outside the grounds upon which leave had been granted and could not be entertained by the court – Court held that a review of the Statement of Grounds showed that the application was firmly within the stated grounds – Court observed that the respondent’s view that it was only obliged to carry out a review which did not involve an assessment flied in the face of a mandatory order of the Court which it had consented to – respondent’s position ignored the content of the correspondence from the applicants which stated that what was required was a diagnosis and the reasons for it – the Assessment of Needs fell short of what was required under the 2005 Act – by taking the position it did, the respondent was, in effect, ignoring the Order which it had consented to – applicants were entitled to succeed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
