A local education authority refused to pay salaries to teachers in a non-provided school at the same rate as it paid the teachers in provided schools. The managers of the non-provided school complained, and the Board of Education directed an inquiry, the result of which was a report that the local education authority had failed to maintain the school and keep it efficient. The ‘questions’ required by s. 7, sub-s. 3, to be determined by the Board of Education were: ‘(1.) Whether the local education authority have in fixing and paying the salaries of the teachers fulfilled their duty under s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Act ; (2.) whether the salaries inserted in the teachers’ present agreements are reasonable in amount and ought to be paid by the authority, or what salaries the authority ought to pay.’ The Board purported to give its decision in a document which failed to deal with the matters in issue.
Held: Inasmuch as the Board had not determined the questions, the decision must be quashed by certiorari, and a mandamus must issue commanding the Board to determine the questions. The right of a local education authority to differentiate between schools in regard to the scale of salaries or the standard of efficiency, in the absence of special circumstances appropriate to the differentiation, discussed.
The Board’s decision was quashed and an order of mandamus issued.
Lord Loreburn LC said: ‘The board is in the nature of the arbitral tribunal, and a court of law has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the determination either upon law or upon fact. But if the court is satisfied either that the board have not acted judicially in the way I have described, or have not determined the question which they are required by the Act to determine, then there is a remedy by mandamus and certiorari.’
‘In such cases the Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts. I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon every one who decides anything . .
They can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their view.’
It should act judicially.
Judges:
Lord Loreburn LC
Citations:
[1911] AC 179, [1911-13] All ER 36, 104 LT 689, 80 LJKB 796
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Henshall v General Medical Council and others CA 13-Dec-2005
The claimant had lodged a complaint against a medical practitioner. The preliminary proceedings committee had accepted evidence from the doctor, but had not given the complainant opportunity to see it and comment upon it.
Held: the rules must . .
Cited – Regina v Camden LBC ex parte Paddock 1992
Sedley LJ articulated the principle adumbrated by Lord Loreburn LC in Board of Education v Rice: ‘ . . that a decision-making body should not see relevant material without giving those affected a chance to comment on it and, if they wish, to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Natural Justice, Education
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.237840