In a judgment handed down last week, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said the issues were “understandably frustrating for the applicant and his family”, but there was “no evidence before the court to suggest that there was any conscious or deliberate flouting of rights”.

The applicant, LC, a minor suing through his mother and next friend, AF, had sought declaratory relief arising from what he alleged was a failure by the minister for education and youth to comply with their statutory obligations under the Education Act 1998.

Section 7(1) of the Act requires the minister to ensure “support services”, including transport services, are made available to students such as those with special educational needs.

The court heard that LC’s family had completed an application for a school escort in July 2024, which was furnished to the relevant team in September 2024, shortly after his family, who live in Kilnamanagh, accepted a place at a school in Dublin 4.

However, a school escort service was not provided until May 2025, and was then soon disrupted and not provided again until July 2025.

Ms Justice Bolger said the “long process… has been understandably frustrating for the applicant and his parents”, though noted that he had been offered “temporary alternative support in the form of a school transport grant and a home tuition grant” in the meantime.

The judge found that the respondent had taken a “proactive approach” in spite of “practical challenges presented by unsuccessful recruitment processes and delays caused by legal obligations including procurement rules and garda vetting requirements”.

“Insofar as the applicant has not yet been provided with the transport service that the Act requires the minister to provide, I am satisfied that this was due to genuine difficulties that the relevant personnel were actively seeking to address during which time suitable alternative supports were offered to the applicant as a temporary measure pending the applicant’s individual escort transport service being made available to him,” she said.

Ms Justice Bolger therefore refused the reliefs sought by the applicant.

However, she said the delay “cannot be unlimited” and she would allow the applicant liberty to apply in the event that there is any further delay on the resumption of school in September.

She also indicated that there “may be a basis for a partial costs order in favour of the applicant” as the respondent’s progress since March 2025 “may have been influenced by the existence of these proceedings and the case management that was applied”.

The case will come before Ms Justice Bolger again on 14 October 2025 for final orders.

Counsel for the applicant were Derek Shortall SC and Paul Gunning BL, while the respondent was represented by David Leahy SC and Julie Maher BL.