header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 July 2009 / Andrew Ritchie KC
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Features , Training & education , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Damaged

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll