A father suing his local council for alleged shortcomings in his daughter's education may be forced to drop the case after being warned he could have to pay thousands of pounds in legal expenses.

A father suing his local council for alleged shortcomings in his daughter's education may be forced to drop the case after being warned he could have to pay thousands of pounds in legal expenses.

In a blow for what parents' groups have described as a test case on their rights, Paul Tierney has been told by lawyers acting for South Lanarkshire Council that it is seeking to have the case remitted from the small claims court to Hamilton Sheriff Court.

The move would mean that legal expenses would not be limited, potentially leaving Mr Tierney with a huge bill for costs, despite his only putting in a claim for £250.

Mr Tierney, a toolmaker, lodged the action after claiming his daughter had not received proper English tuition in the lead-up to her Standard Grade examination. He said the money would compensate the cost of paying a private teacher, whom he employed in the absence of a dedicated English teacher at St Andrew's and St Bride's High School in East Kilbride.

Mike Dailly, principal lawyer at Govan Law Centre, attacked the council's move as "completely disproportionate and unfair". He said: "If the case is heard in a Sheriff Court, Mr Tierney could be exposed to thousands of pounds in legal expenses. I don't think that's fair at all, given that his claim is only for £250.

"If you are going to have access to justice, a lot of that is about being able to pursue relatively modest claims without fear of costs. This makes a mockery of the small claims system. It's effectively a way of seeing off the claim."

Mr Tierney's action, which was highlighted by The Herald last month, won the praise of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which said it highlighted a lack of clarity over schools' legal obligations when providing education.

The £250 claim was submitted to cover the cost of educating his 15-year-old daughter, Denise, during a 10-week period when no English teacher was available. She sat her exams in May.

When the case appeared at Hamilton small claims court on June 26, the lawyer acting for South Lanarkshire Council pressed for it to be dismissed out of hand, arguing that there were no established legal grounds for the action.

Dorothy McGhee, appearing for the council, argued that there was no contract with either Mr Tierney or his daughter to provide education and that no "duty of care" had been established.

However, in a letter sent to Mr Tierney by Simpson and Marwick solicitors last week, and seen by The Herald, the council's legal representative claim the case involves a "difficult question of law" that would be best dealt with under ordinary cause procedure rather than small claims procedure. A further hearing is due on October 2.

Mr Tierney said the latest development had caused him to have sleepless nights.

He said: "Where do you go to get someone to take responsibility? The whole reason I went through the small claims court is because I couldn't afford legal costs. I have two children at university as well and would have to drop it if it went to the Sheriff Court. The council know there's no way on earth I could afford it.

"If I didn't send my kids to school, the council would be quick enough to take action against me. But it seems that if you question them, there's nothing you can do."

A spokesman for South Lanarkshire Council said: "I can confirm that an application has been made for the case to be remitted to the ordinary court. No decision has yet been made."