O'Sheil v Min For Education

NavyandBlue

This case is reported at [1999] 2 IR 321.

I have an exam in Educational Rights coming up soon but I am having trouble at figuring out what the ratio of Laffoy J in this case is.

Is it that the wishes of parents as to how their children must be respected by the State but they are not obliged to provide financial support for these wishes. If this is the case, then [leaving aside forcing the parents to send their children to State schools] the State is hardly respecting these wishes by not providing any financial assistance.

Laffoy J does recognise that the ratio of her judgment is not particularly clear by stating that the true position is somewhere between the polarised views of the two parties, but can anyone assist me in stating what the point of the judgment is and how the case develops educational rights?

Thanks

MrPudding

NavyandBlue wrote: »

This case is reported at [1999] 2 IR 321.

I have an exam in Educational Rights coming up soon but I am having trouble at figuring out what the ratio of Laffoy J in this case is.

Is it that the wishes of parents as to how their children must be respected by the State but they are not obliged to provide financial support for these wishes. If this is the case, then [leaving aside forcing the parents to send their children to State schools] the State is hardly respecting these wishes by not providing any financial assistance.

Laffoy J does recognise that the ratio of her judgment is not particularly clear by stating that the true position is somewhere between the polarised views of the two parties, but can anyone assist me in stating what the point of the judgment is and how the case develops educational rights?

Thanks

Can't help with the case as I am not familiar with it, but I have a suggestion that might help.

Have you looked at any cases that have considered this one? I have found that in later cases that consider the one I am interested in the judges often give a good explanation of the ratio in in their judgements or speeches.

MrP

Tom Young

See Hardiman J decision in Sinnott v Minister for Education.