Fife Council "not obliged" to pay autistic teenager's school fees
Three judges at Scotland's highest civil court have ruled that Fife council doesn't have to pay an autistic teenager's private school fees.
Three judges at Scotland's highest civil court have ruled that Fife council doesn't have to pay an autistic teenager's private school fees.
Lady Paton, Lord Bracadale and Lord McGhie ruled on Friday that the local authority didn't need to pay for the 18-year-old boy to attend an independent school for 12 months.
Lawyers acting for the council had gone to the Court of Session in Edinburgh after a sheriff earlier ruled that the local authority should meet the £45,910 cost.
The young man's family had sued the local authority at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court after the education department refused to pay the sum.
The teenager, who hasn't been named, has an "autistic spectrum disorder" and "dyspraxia".
He started attending a mainstream school in Fife but his disabilities meant he started attending a private school in January 2010.
Fife Council paid his school fees.
But when he turned 18 in 2013, his teachers thought he needed another year at the school to bring him to a educational standard comparable to those of his friends who didn't have a disability.
However, Fife Council said they didn't have any legal requirement to meet the cost.
The sheriff then ruled that Fife Council breached equality legislation and ordered councillors to pay the boy's school fees.
He was also awarded £2,500 compensation for the "stress and anxiety" for which he was placed under during the dispute.
In a written judgement issued on Friday, the judges ruled that the Council did breach the Equality Act in their dealings with the youngster and was also entitled to the compensation.
However, the judges also ruled that there was no requirement in law for the local authority to pay for the boy's legal fees once he reached the age of 18.
In the judgement, Lord Bracadale wrote: "I am satisfied therefore that in this case there was a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and that the local authority failed to comply with that duty in relation to the pursuer; in the light of that award in respect of the claim based on compensation for injured feelings should be affirmed.
"But the breach of duty would not give rise to a requirement to pay the fees for a further year at the school and I would allow the appeal to the extent of quashing the liability in respect of the payment of fees for an addition year at the school."
During proceedings, the judges heard how the council started paying the youngster's fees from May 2011. But as he approached his 18th birthday, the council told his parents that had no statutory obligation to pay his fees.
Lawyers acting for the council said that the local authority had no statutory requirement to meet the teenager's school fees once he turned 18.
Councillors used section one of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and sections one and two of the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000 as the basis of their decision.
The legislation - which was modelled on the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - states that children are aged between five and 18.
This legislation states that local authorities have a duty to provide education to children.
The boy's family then sued the local authority at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court claiming that the Equality Act had been breached. A sheriff there agreed with the family and ruled that their son had been the victim of "unlawful discrimination."
Lawyers for the council then appealed to the Court of Session.
The three judges concluded that even although the council did breach equality legislation, the nature of the law meant that it did not automatically mean that it had to pay the young man's fees.
In his written judgement, Lord McGhie wrote: "It is impossible to approach the matter without a feeling of sympathy for the pursuer and an expression of admiration for his family who have not campaigned on his behalf but provided substantial support.
"There is no doubt that it was an entirely sensible and appropriate decision that he should have a further year at the school to allow him to make the most of his school years.
"However, it must be said that I have found nothing in the wide range of duties explored before us to suggest that he had a positive right to be funded by the defenders after he was 18."