header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 November 2011
Issue: 7491 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Education—Special education needs—Age at which statement of special education needs lapses

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Williams v Essex County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1315, [2011] All ER (D) 127 (Nov)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Maurice Kay, Moses LJJ and Baron J, 15 Nov 2011

A statement of special educational needs automatically lapses when a person turns 19 years of age, and thereby ceases to be a child.

Fiona Scolding (instructed by Essex County Council) for the authority. David Wolfe (instructed by Levenes) for the claimant.

The claimant was born in August 1989. She had Down’s Syndrome, and her functional age was about 10 years or less. In February 2008, the defendant local authority wrote to the claimant’s parents stating that they would cease to maintain the statement of special educational needs after she turned 19. The parents did not accept that decision. In subsequent proceedings the issue arose as to the age at which a local authority’s responsibilities in respect of maintaining a statement came to an end.

Baron J

The issue was of general importance because

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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