Chambers Blog

Ian Jones is quoted extensively in the newspapers this week as figures are released showing that 1 in 10 primary school children were denied a place at the school preferred by their parents. Through his website www.school-appeal.org.uk, Ian Jones provides advice and support to hundreds of parents who want help with the appeal process. Ian also highlights a rise in demand from parents who have failed in their appeal but feel that the process was unfair, and from parents who want to challenge the admissions policy for their preferred school.

For those who want to follow the media discussion, the story is taken up by the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Independent and the Guardian newspapers.

School appeals are likely to feature further in the news over the next few weeks, with more school appeal statistics due out on Thursday and with a forthcoming High Court ruling on the powers of appeal panels.

 Ian Jones is a barrister specialising in school appeals and education law at New Walk Chambers, Leicester.

A press release from the Home Office Press Office confirmed that all former Gurkhas who have served in the British Army for at least four years will now be eligible for settlement in the United Kingdom.  There is a new policy which allows for those Gurkhas who retired before 1 July 1997 and completed four years' service to apply to settle in the United Kingdom with their spouses and dependent children.  Those who retired after 1 July 1997 are already eligible to apply for settlement under the current immigration rules.  (Source: http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/gurkhas-right-to-settle-in-uk)

Written by Kajal Dasani, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in Immigration Law.

Independant Appeal Panels are working through the backlog of appeals for primary and secondary school places and grammar school appeals. Appeals submitted by the local deadline (which varies across the country) need to be heard and decided by the end of the first week in July.

 Statistically about one in three appeals is successful, so the majority will not be allowed. This statistic masks a range of experience, depending on the type on school and the respective strengths of the admission authority's case and that of the parents.

Many appeals are still waiting to be heard. It may not be too late to obtain professional advice for your child's appeal or representation at the hearing. Please click here for further details.

But if you have already been through the appeal process, what can you do if your school appeal fails? If an independent appeal panel refuses your admission appeal, this decision is final and binding. There is no further appeal. Their decision can only be challenged if the panel did not follow the proper process, got the law wrong or came to a decision which was so unreasonable that no panel in their right minds would have come to the same decision. Simply disagreeing with the decision is not sufficient.

If you think the appeal panel ‘got it wrong', you have three choices. You can ‘put up with' the result, or you can refer the case to the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate, or you can bring a claim for judicial review. If you are thinking of pursuing the complaint, you must do so quickly, as there are legal time limits and any delay may make it even harder to obtain a place at your preferred school.

For advice on making a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman or Judicial Review, please contact Ian Jones.

Written by Ian Jones, barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in School Appeals.

Chambers would like to congratulate Andrew Willetts on his appointment to the office of Recorder. Andrew will be sitting on the midlands circuit and we wish him well on this first stage of his judicial career.

In the case of Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16, the House of Lords confirmed that strict liability could arise under section 2(2) of the The Animals Act 1971 where personal injuries are caused by a horse which, although not behaving at the time of the accident in a way that is normal for the species, is nevertheless normal for animals of the species in the particular circumstances. In this case horses escaped from their field, bolted for a distance of over a mile onto a dual carriageway and struck a car, causing the driver to suffer serious personal injury. The horse owner was strictly liable for the damages.

However, cases following Mirvahedy, such as Freeman v Higher Park Farm [2008] All ER (D) 310, have demonstrated that decisions on strict liability are highly fact sensitive. The case of Freeman concerned a bucking horse which caused its rider to fall. This case failed on the basis of the lack of evidence that horses generally buck at particular times or in particular circumstances. In any event, the rider was excepted from liability under s.2 by s.5(2) as the rider was said to have voluntarily assumed the risk of damage by continuing to ride a horse which had already bucked during the same ride.

In conclusion, thorough factual analysis of every potential equine related personal injury claim is essential in order to determine whether a horse owner will be strictly liable for personal injuries caused by their horse.

 Written by Nathalie Bull, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in Equine Law.