0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Winser v Devon County Council, High Court, Exeter District Registry, January 2009

2 February 2009
The issues

Whether there was an obligation on a school to place a dyslexic child with a high IQ as assessed on an IQ test in the top academic sets in his school, or whether the school was entitled to set according to their perception of his functioning ability.
Whether the Claimant’s poor behaviour and disappointing examination results were caused by inadequately remediated dyslexia.

The facts

The Claimant had a very high IQ score. He also had dyslexia, although there was an issue as to its severity. He was placed middle sets by his school, where he achieved at about the middle of his class groupings. He alleged however that his intellect was such that he should have been placed in top sets and given whatever additional assistance as was required in those sets to overcome the handicap presented by his dyslexia. He claimed that instead he became bored and frustrated at school, leading to his complete disengagement in his GCSE years. He claimed that the school’s special educational needs coordinator and an educational psychologist who assessed him on a number of occasions were negligent.

The decision

HHJ Griggs sitting as a deputy of the High Court dismissed the claim. The Claimant’s dyslexia was not severe. Further, there was a body of educational opinion whose view was that you make provision for pupils not in accordance with their perceived potential ability but in accordance with their actual functioning. IQ tests do not by themselves predict academic attainment. The Claimant’s principal problem whilst at school was a lack of motivation for his studies. The link between his dyslexia and poor behaviour and academic failure was not established.

Our thanks to Andrew Warnock of 1 Chancery Lane who appeared for the Defendant and who produced this note.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up