Call for more funding for school autism units

The Herald reports that Scottish local authorities are coming under increasing pressure to provide more specialist places for pupils with autism.

The row has come to a head after a court case involving Ross McLaughlin, a 12-year-old Glasgow pupil with autism. Ross was assessed as requiring a specialist place when he moved from Caledonia Primary School, in Baillieston, Glasgow, to nearby Bannerman High School.

He was then told there was no place for him because the unit, which caters for 12 pupils, was full, and that he would have to be supported in a mainstream classroom on a temporary basis.

His parents sought help from Govan Law Centre's Education Law Unit. Glasgow City Council initially contested the action, but, a few days before the court hearing, Ross was offered a place in the unit at Bannerman High.

GLC's Iain Nisbet, said the law was clear that education authorities had a duty to make adequate provision for children with additional support needs - and that costs could not be an easy excuse for failing to do so.

"It is a continuing source of frustration that education authorities have not made the necessary arrangements to accommodate the needs of all of their autistic pupils, leading to an annual lucky dip for parents seeking places," he said.

Headteachers in jobs dispute are praised by inspectors

The Herald, 28 August 2009, reports that Acting headteachers from two primaries in Scotland's largest local authority who were replaced under controversial circumstances have been praised by school inspectors.

The development follows accusations in June that Glasgow City Council had appointed new heads to the schools without consulting parents.

Mike Dailly, principal solicitor with the Glasgow-based Govan Law Centre, which is taking the case, said: "These reports show why parents have been so loyal to the acting headteachers and are a clear demonstration of why the council should have consulted with the parents."

Share on Facebook

Contributory negligence no defence in disrepair claims

Sheriff MacKenzie has held that a landlord's defence of contributory negligence is irrelevant in a breach of contract claim by a tenant for damages for dampness and disrepair.

In the unreported GLC case of Deans v. Glasgow Housing Association (Glasgow Sheriff Court, 19 August 2009)the court repelled the defender's contributory negligence defence following a diet of debate on 18 May and 3 July. A contributory negligence defence generally apportions some of the blame on the pursuer, and if successful results in any award of compensation being substantially reduced.

In the present case the defenders' claimed inter alia 'The pursuer ought to have followed the defenders' advice by removing the Calor gas heaters and tape from the vents in the bedroom, and by venting the tumble dryer'.

Sheriff MacKenzie held 'I am in respectful agreement with the analysis of the structure of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 set out by Lord Glennie in Stewart and Stewart v. Pure Ltd [2008] CSOH 49 and the consequent rationale of his decision in that case. As Lord Glennie observed, in Reeves v. Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 A.C. 360 Lord Hope of Craighead identified that there are two limbs to consider in relation to the interpretation of the 'Act'. Considering the second 'limb', referable to the pursuer's conduct, a defence of contributory negligence would not have been open under contract at common law. Applying such a approach to the present case I am satisfied that the defender's pleadings and plea in law regarding contributory negligence should not be remitted to probation'.

Separately, the court deleted the defenders' pleadings which sought to blame the tenant for the cause of the dampness and disrepair. The defenders had averred 'It was the duty of the pursuer to see to it that the subjects were adequately heated and ventilated. Further it was her duty to take and act upon the advice from the defenders as her landlord'. These averments were deleted as the court decided to follow the approach of Lord Johnson in Guy v. Strathkelvin District Council 1997 Hous LR 14.

Share on Facebook