The school challenged a determination that it had failed to fufil its statutory requirement to set admissions criteria.
Held: The request for judicial review succeeded. The school had shown: ‘i) The Adjudicator applied too stringent a test when concluding that the Governing Body of the School (as the relevant ‘admission authority’, per section 88 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (‘SSFA 1998’)) had failed to ‘have regard’ to the published Guidance (2003) from the Archdiocese of Westminster (as it was required to do under the Department for Education’s School Admissions Code (2012) (‘the Admissions Code’)) when setting its faith-based oversubscription criteria;
ii) The Adjudicator’s conclusion that the Governing Body of the School had operated an admissions system which was socially selective, discriminatory, and unfairly disadvantageous to children from ‘less well-off’ families was flawed, and was reached by a process which was procedurally unfair to the School;
iii) The Adjudicator’s conclusion that the admissions forms published by the Governing Body of the School for 2015 were unclear in failing to identify what was meant by a ‘parent’ was Wednesbury unreasonable, failing to acknowledge (or even refer to) the relevant ‘definition’ section which appears prominently in the notes to support the admissions process;
iv) That it was/would be permissible for the School to request parents’ baptismal certificates as proof of their Catholic faith; such a request does not offend against the Admissions Code;
v) That (subject to there being clear and proper reason for departing from the Diocesan Guidance to which the School was obliged to have regard) it was/would be permissible for the School to include an over-subscription criterion seeking evidence of previous Catholic education in the manner which the School adopted in 2014, and in 2015 (for Year 3 candidates only); the Adjudicator acted unlawfully in concluding that the School had breached the Admissions Code in including this criterion;
vi) That, while I disagree with the School’s interpretation of Regulation 16 of the School Admissions (Admission Arrangements and Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements)(England) Regulations 2012 (‘the 2012 Regulations’) in relation to consultation on its admissions processes, the Adjudicator was wrong to conclude that the School could show no evidence that it had as a matter of fact failed to make any meaningful attempt to bring the School’s proposed arrangements to the attention of the required consultees.’
Cobb J
[2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin)
Bailii
School Standards and Framework Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – London Oratory School v The Schools Adjudicator Admn 12-Aug-2005
Challenge by one school to the admission policy of a second school. . .
Cited – DD, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Appeal Panel of The London Borough of Islington and Another Admn 25-Jul-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision by which it dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the London Borough of Islington to refuse to comply with the claimant’s preference for her son LD to attend T primary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.545610