John Friel

Call:1974

Introduction and Contact details

John Friel is a highly experienced practitioner with particular expertise in public law issues. He has developed a strong practice since joining Hardwicke Building, with extensive experience acting for local authorities, private applicants, charities, independent schools, maintained schools governing bodies and provides a prompt response to instructions.  He has won leading cases in the House of Lords, Court of Appeal, and High Court.  He is available for direct client access in certain cases.

John is featured in Legal 500 and Chambers UK as an Education Law specialist.

"...good technical knowledge." - Chambers UK (2009)

"...really becomes involved with his client's cause." - Chambers UK (2009)

"...achieves success in cases that may not appear so strong on paper." - The Legal 500 (2008)

Tel:    020 7242 2523 (switchboard)
Fax:   020 7691 1234

Email: john.friel@hardwicke.co.uk

PUBLIC LAW

John has considerable experience and expertise in a number of Public Law areas including benefits, social welfare, discrimination, education, community care, human rights, judicial review, professional discipline and employment related issues. 

Community Care/Social Welfare

John has considerable experience and expertise in achieving a successful result for clients when the circumstances appear to be against them. He is able to provide reasoned and both practical advice in what can be a complex and difficult area.

Relevant Cases

R. (on the application of M) v Suffolk CC [2006] EWHC 2366 (Admin)
John Friel successfully represented the claimant, someone who suffered from severe learning and behavioural difficulties, who applied for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision that it was precluded from paying her residential school fees. M, who was 17, suffered from severe learning and behavioural difficulties.

R. v Devon CC Ex p. George [1989] A.C. 573
John Friel represented the applicant in a judicial review case which discussed the local authority’s duty to provide transportation for pupils to school.

Central & Local Government/Professional Duties

John accepts instructions to advise and represent both local authorities and individuals, particularly in cases relating to social welfare, discrimination, benefits, and judicial review. John’s work naturally overlaps with his other practice area of education and discrimination, meaning that he can address all issues which arise regarding children with special needs as well as the duties upon the local authorities to accommodate them.

Relevant Cases

T v Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales [2007] EWHC 3039 (Admin)
A case which concerned the decision making of local government and the adequacy of reasoning in Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal decision

Slough BC v C [2004] EWHC 1759 (Admin)
Case which discussion of the LEA’s duty to educate children within mainstream schools as far as possible.

X Minors v Bedfordshire [1995] 2AC 633
The first successful case involving the negligence of educational professionals.  Established the duty of care of educational psychologists and teachers.

Phelps and Others v Hillingdon [2001] 2AC page 619
This case confirmed the Lord’s decision in X Minors above and extended the scope of the duty of care in education.

L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 128
This is the leading case on the rights of children with statements of special educational needs.

Court of Protection & Mental Capacity

Much of John’s work in this area goes unreported due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The experience which John has in working for clients and their relatives who are faced with these issues allows him to maintain a considerable amount of professional discretion without compromising his exhaustive academic ability.

John has particular experience of matters with a public policy dimension and pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, in the Court of Protection and High Court concerning vulnerable children who lack capacity, representing local authorities and family members in disputes concerning declarations as to best interests, residence and guardianship.

Relevant Cases

Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Pivcevic [2006] EWHC 1709 (Admin)
John Friel successfully represented the family of an autistic pupil in a case regarding the adequacy of educational provision at a local authority specialist school.

Discrimination

John’s expertise in this area is largely tied into his equal prowess in the areas of local government, the court of protection & mental capacity, and human rights. He accepts instructions from both private clients and local authorities, particularly in relation to the education of disabled minors.

Related Cases

F Primary School Governing Body v T [2006] EWHC 1250 (Admin)
John Friel represented an appellant school against a decision of the tribunal that it had subjected a pupil to disability discrimination when it twice excluded him for unacceptable behaviour.

B County Council v H [2008] EWHC 1070 (Admin)
An appeal by a LEA against the decision of a Special Needs Education Tribunal to move a child with ADHD and Autism to another school. Involved issues of disability discrimination.

Education

K v The School and the Special Needs Tribunal, Court of Appeal [2007] ELR 234
John Friel represented the school which established the nature of the defence of justification in Disability Discrimination.  It is the leading case on Justification.

Chambers UK Legal Directory 2009 Edition described the Education team at Hardwicke Building as “helpful, readily available and talented”. They singled John Friel out in particular as “academically sound”. John Friel was also recommended as a leader in his field in the Legal 500 in 2008.

John Friel has handled a large number of highly complex, complicated and difficult cases in the Special Education Needs Tribunal. The amount of tribunal cases has increased, and the cases have increased in complexity, and in difficulty.  John has achieved a commendable degree of success in such cases.

Relevant Cases

L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 128
This is the leading case on the rights of children with statements of special educational needs.

School Admission Appeals Panel for the London Borough of Hounslow v The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow (2002) ELR 602
This case establishing at long last, despite contrary dicta in the Court of Appeal, and some first instance decisions to the contrary that the Human Rights Act does have a significant effect upon school admission appeals, and education law generally. At p.602 May LJ specifically singled out Mr Friel’s submissions for favourable comment. Confirmed Gloucestershire LEA.

Gloucestershire Local Education Authority v Gloucestershire Schools Appeal Panel (2002) ELR 309
John Friel appeared for the parents successfully. 

O v The London Borough of Harrow & Sherwin (2002) ELR 195
Court of Appeal allowed the parents appeal, Mr Friel representing the parents, on the issue of the structure of the appellate process under the 1996 Education Act.

B v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] EWHC 2094 (Admin)
John presented a child who appealed against a decision that the respondent local authority had correctly decided to place her at a maintained special school for pupils with a range of special educational needs rather than an independent school for pupils with speech, language and communication difficulties.

B County Council v H [2008] EWHC 1070 (Admin)
An appeal by a LEA against the decision of a Special Needs Education Tribunal to move a child with ADHD and Autism to another school.

Human Rights & Civil Liberties

John practices in the fields of public, administrative and local government law and discrimination law and has developed a healthy human rights practice since joining Hardwicke Building. His experience regarding education and special needs of applicants means that he has considerable understanding in the impact of the ECHR and the duties of the government and local authorities.

Relevant Cases

C v Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal [2007] EWHC 1812 (Admin)
John Friel represented the applicants in a case which included issues under the ECHR.

R. (on the application of JF) v Croydon LBC [2006] EWHC 2368 (Admin)
John Friel represented the appellant in a case concerning issues under Article 6 ECHR.

F Primary School Governing Body v T [2006] EWHC 1250 (Admin)
John Friel represented an appellant school against a decision of the tribunal that it had subjected a pupil to disability discrimination when it twice excluded him for unacceptable behaviour.

Judicial Review

His practice focuses on the review of local authority decisions regarding social welfare, benefits and applicants who have suffered discrimination. John acts on behalf of applicants and respondent local authorities.

Relevant Cases

R. (on the application of M) v Suffolk CC [2006] EWHC 2366 (Admin)
John Friel successfully represented the claimant, someone who suffered from severe learning and behavioural difficulties, who applied for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision that it was precluded from paying her residential school fees. M, who was 17, suffered from severe learning and behavioural difficulties.

R. v Devon CC Ex p. George [1989] A.C. 573
John Friel represented the applicant in a judicial review case which discussed the local authority’s duty to provide transportation for pupils to school.

Professional Discipline & Regulation

John’s work in this area naturally overlaps with his work in Judicial Review and Local Government. His wide ranging practice encompasses all areas of reviewing professional conduct for which he has received significant recognition.

Recent Work

John Friel has continued to deal with a large number of professional negligence cases, the majority of which settled favourably prior to coming to court and two of which settled in court.  Since the House of Lords’ decision in Phelps v Hillingdon (2001) AC 611, few such cases have been fought to the finish.  The trend continues.  However, in other areas, despite a high degree of success in settling favourably administrative law cases, there have been a number of significant developments.

Relevant Cases

H v Isle of Wight Council 2001 WL 825780
Allegations that a local education authority had negligently failed to protect a dyslexic pupil from bullying or take adequate steps to maintain and support her educational progress were entirely baseless.

Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 A.C. 619
House of Lords case concerning the duties of a teacher and whether a local education authority could be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. It was held that there was no justification for a blanket immunity policy in respect of education officers performing the authority's functions with regard to children with special educational needs.