header-logo header-logo

Damaged

31 July 2009 / Andrew Ritchie KC
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Features , Training & education , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Part two: Who should pay for additional educational needs? Andrew Ritchie QC

In the first part of this article, I examined the main principles and the law related to a claim for damages for additional educational needs (see NLJ, 24 July 2009, p 1055). In this follow up, I consider the arguments claimants can use to persuade a court to award damages for the additional costs of education where it is available on the state.

The first step in assessing the educational needs and costs in a brain damage case is to obtain a report from an educational psychologist on the child’s special educational needs.

If the child’s needs are being met by the state and there is no need for more in future then no claim will arise. However, if the expert advises that the state provision is inadequate or will soon become inadequate then a claim for damages for additional educational provision will arise.

Compulsory insurance

The claimant’s first argument is that the tortfeasor should pay not the state. That is one

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll