Tag: Education

Nyoni, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others: Admn 4 Dec 2015

Sir Brian Keith
[2015] EWHC 3533 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Benefits

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556474

James Watson of Saughton Esq; v Robert Watson of Muirhouse Esq: HL 13 Jul 1715

Tutor and Pupil – Acceptance of the office of tutory found not proved by tutorial inventories, which were not judicially signed, and wanted writer’s name and witnesses, unless posterior acts of administration were instructed; nor by a missive letter not holograph, and without solemnities, consenting to lend the pupil’s money.
Certain acts of administration not sufficient to infer the acceptance of the office.
An affirmance with 30 l. costs.

[1715] UKHL Robertson – 134, (1715) Robertson 134
Bailii
Scotland

Education

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553485

Winstanley v Sleeman and Another: QBD 13 Dec 2013

The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The defendants no wapplied to strike out a clai for negligence.
Held: The application failed: ‘If a university fails to take proper care of a student’s career by falling short in the delivery of the processes involved in obtaining the qualification for which the student is studying, why is it not arguable that it is foreseeable that the claimant will suffer some loss or injury as a result? The nature of the injury need not, as a matter of law be foreseeable but the possibility of injury of some description is surely foreseeable, or at least arguably so.’

Saffman HHJ
[2013] EWHC B43 (QB), [2013] EWHC 4792 (QB)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 9
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 5-Dec-2016
The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535721

Biblical Centre of The Chuvash Republic v Russia: ECHR 12 Jun 2014

ECHR Article 9-1
Freedom of religion
Dissolution of religious community without relevant and sufficient reasons: violation
Facts – The applicant was a Pentecostal mission that registered as a religious organisation in November 1991. In 1996 it founded a Biblical college and Sunday school. However, it was dissolved with immediate effect in October 2007 by order of the Supreme Court on the grounds that it had conducted educational activities without authorisation and in breach of sanitary and hygiene rules.
Law – Article 9 of the Convention interpreted in the light of Article 11: The applicant’s dissolution amounted to an interference with its rights to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention interpreted in the light of the right to freedom of association enshrined in Article 11. The dissolution was ordered in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting health and the rights of others by putting an end to unlicensed education in inadequate sanitary conditions.
The applicant had founded the Biblical college and the Sunday school in 1996 and had run them for more than eleven years without interruption. A federal court had stated in 2002 that Sunday school fell outside the scope of the Education Act and did not require a licence. In these circumstances, the novel interpretation of the Act with regard to the mandatory licensing of Sunday schools adopted by the courts in the present case was not sufficiently foreseeable to enable the applicant to anticipate its application and adjust its conduct accordingly. Indeed, some nine months after giving judgment upholding the applicant’s dissolution, the Supreme Court had reversed its stance on the licensing of Sunday schools, holding that teaching religion to children in such schools did not amount to education and that alleged breaches of the sanitary rules could not justify dissolving a religious organisation.
It had not, therefore, been convincingly established that the applicant had received advance notice that its activities were in breach of the law. The Supreme Court had ordered its dissolution just one day after finding it liable for a breach of the sanitary rules., despite the fact that there was nothing to indicate that any of defects were irremediable or constituted a clear and imminent danger to life and limb and without offering it a choice between rectifying the breaches or discontinuing the activities related to the instruction of its followers.
Nor did the Court accept that the dissolution of the applicant, a registered religious organisation, was necessary because the Sunday school or Biblical college were not registered as separate legal entities. The domestic courts had not indicated what other, less intrusive, means of achieving the declared aim of the protection of the rights of students had been considered and why they had been deemed insufficient. Accordingly, the domestic authorities had not shown that the dissolution, which undermined the very substance of the applicant’s rights to freedom of religion and association, was the only option for the fulfilment of the aims they pursued.
Regarding the nature and severity of the sanction, as a result of the Russian courts’ decisions, the applicant had ceased to exist as a registered religious organisation and its members were divested of the right to manifest their religion in community with others and to engage in the activities indispensable to their religious practice.
As the Court noted in Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, by virtue of section 14 of the Religions Act the only sanction which Russian courts could use against religious organisations found to have breached the law is forced dissolution. The Act provided no possibility of issuing a warning or imposing a fine. The sanction of dissolution could be applied indiscriminately without regard to the gravity of the breach in question, a practice which the Constitutional Court had found to be incompatible with the constitutional meaning of the relevant provisions as long ago as 2003. In ordering the applicant’s dissolution, the Russian courts did not heed the case-law of the Constitutional Court or the relevant Convention standards and they to assess the impact of dissolution on the fundamental rights of Pentecostal believers. In sum, the applicant’s dissolution had not been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.

33203/08 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 606, 33203/08 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 806
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 9-1
Human Rights

Human Rights, Ecclesiastical, Education

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535170

A J S B v Essex County Council and others: QBD 13 Jul 2007

The defendant local authorities sought summary judgment against the claims brought by the claimants who said that their exclusions from schools infringed their human rights. Each claimant was subject to a special educational needs statement.
Held: The actions should be struck out on the ground that they had no realistic prospect of success; but, since the claim had been brought out of time, for reasons which the court went on to give he would in any event not have granted the necessary enlargement of time.

Field J
[2007] EWHC 1652 (QB)
Bailii
Education Act 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – A v Essex County Council CA 16-Apr-2008
The claimants had been excluded from school in ways which they said infringed their human rights. They now appealed against a striking out of their claims given on the ground that the claim had no prospect of success. The claimants also needed . .
At First Instance – A v Essex County Council SC 14-Jul-2010
The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.254585

The Educational Institute for Scotland, Re Judicial Review: SCS 29 Jan 2014

(Inner House) Petition for judicial review, the Educational Institute of Scotland challenge the lawfulness of a decision of the Director of Education of Glasgow City Council. The EIS characterise that decision as ‘[introducing] a policy (a) whereby the position of head of a nursery school could be held by individuals without teaching qualifications and who are not registered teachers’: statement 2 of the petition. The Council describe the decision as an approval of a job specification inviting qualified persons, including non-teachers, to apply for posts as ‘head of nursery or family learning centre’

Lady Paton
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 13, 2014 SLT 291, 2014 SC 457, 2014 GWD 5-96
Bailii
Scotland

Education

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520903

Regina v Governors of Dunraven School Ex Parte B: CA 21 Dec 1999

Three pupils were excluded after a finding of theft. On appeal the second child to be heard was not told what had been said by the first to be heard. The first was allowed back into the school, but not the applicant.
Held: The Act showed that the child should be given a fair hearing, for which it was necessary to know the case against him. Neither the principles nor details of the PACE rules applied, but they remained a useful test of fairness and improper pressure. The procedure used was deemed unfair because the school appeared to have placed reliance upon what had been said by the first boy, and that therefore the second had not been allowed to hear the basis for the decision, and to answer allegations which might have been made.

Morritt LJ, Brooke LJ, Sedley LJ
Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 03-Feb-2000, [2000] ELR 156
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child) QBD 24-Sep-1999
The school investigated allegations of theft and expelled the child. The independent appela panel rejected the appeal. The child’s parents sought a judicial review because of the way the investigation had been handled.
Held: A school enquiring . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Edwards) v Head Teacher of Whitton High School and Others Admn 2-Nov-2001
The applicant’s son had been excluded from the respondent’s school. She sought judicial review of the decision in that insufficient reasons had been given, and the hearing unfair at the Independent Appeal Tribunal. The son was subject to a statement . .
Appealed to – Regina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child) QBD 24-Sep-1999
The school investigated allegations of theft and expelled the child. The independent appela panel rejected the appeal. The child’s parents sought a judicial review because of the way the investigation had been handled.
Held: A school enquiring . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Natural Justice

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.85285

Lavida And Others v Greece: ECHR 30 May 2013

The case concerned the education of Roma children who were restricted to attending a primary school in which the only pupils were other Roma children.
Held: Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
The Court found that the continuing nature of this situation and the State’s refusal to take anti-segregation measures implied discrimination and a breach of the right to education.

7973/10 – Chamber Judgment (French Text), [2013] ECHR 488
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Children, Discrimination, Education

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.510736

Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2: ECHR 9 Feb 1967

The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to comply with a Convention obligation, a State may include within the system elements that are not strictly required by the Convention itself, as in the case of appeal rights in the context of Article 6; and where that is done, the distribution of these supererogatory rights must comply with Article 14: ‘the Contracting Parties do not recognise such a right to education as would require them to establish at their own expense, or to subsidise, education of any particular type or at any particular level. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the State has no positive obligation to ensure respect for such a right as is protected by Article 2. . [The obligation is] of guaranteeing . . the right, in principle, to avail themselves of the means of instruction existing at a given time . . The first sentence of Article 2 . . consequently guarantees, in the first place, a right of access to educational institutions existing at a given time . . For the ‘right to education’ to be effective, it is further necessary that, inter alia , the individual who is the beneficiary should have the possibility of drawing profit from the education received, that is to say, the right to obtain, in conformity with the rules in force in each State…official recognition of the studies which he has completed . . The right . . guaranteed by the first sentence of Article 2 . . by its very virtue calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and the individuals.’

1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, (1968) 1 EHRR 252, [1968] ECHR 3, [1967] ECHR 1
Worldlii, Worldlii
European Convention on Human Rights 14
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Clift v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Jun-2003
The claimant had been sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He challenged the differing treatment for parole purposes of those sentenced to more than 15 years, as infringing his human rights, insofar as the decision was retained by the Home Secretary. . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Cited – Bishop of Roman Catholic Diocese of Port Louis and Others v Suttyhudeo Tengur and Others PC 3-Feb-2004
PC (Mauritius) A father challenged the constitutionality of a system where 50% of places in Catholic run secondary schools were allocated to Catholic childen, and fifty per cent according to merit. He feared this . .
Cited – Douglas v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The applicant had sought a student loan to support his studies as a mature student. It was refused because he would be over 55 at the date of the commencement of the course. He claimed this was discriminatory.
Held: The Convention required the . .
Cited – Ali v The Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School CA 29-Mar-2004
The student had been unlawfully excluded from school. The school had not complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the Act.
Held: Though the 1996 Act placed the responsibilty for exclusion upon the local authority, the head and . .
Cited – Begum, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School Admn 15-Jun-2004
A schoolgirl complained that she had been excluded from school for wearing a form of attire which accorded with her Muslim beliefs.
Held: The school had made great efforts to establish what forms of wear were acceptable within the moslem . .
Cited – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
Cited – Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .
Cited – Campbell and Cosans v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1982
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten ‘cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State’s power of regulation in article 2’. The Convention protects only religions and . .
Cited – Timishev v Russia ECHR 13-Dec-2005
The applicant complained of an alleged infringement of his Article 2 rights. His children had been excluded from school because he was not registered as resident in the area. His appeal to the domestic courts was dismissed, although the Government . .
Cited – Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School HL 22-Mar-2006
The claimant had been accused with others of arson to school property. He was suspended for the maximum forty five day period. The school then invited the family to discuss arrangements to return to the school, but the family did not attend. After . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rudi v Same HL 25-Jun-2008
Each claimant had arrived here with their parents, and stayed for several years. They were excluded from the scheme allowing families who had been here more than three years to stay here, because they had attained 18 and were no longer dependant on . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – McDougal, Regina (On the Application of) v Liverpool City Council Admn 22-Jul-2009
Right Questions asked on School Closure
The claimant sought to challenge the respondent’s decision to close a local school. The choice had been made on academic results and the number of vacancies.
Held: The application failed. The Council had complied with its obligation in . .
Cited – A v Essex County Council SC 14-Jul-2010
The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had . .
Cited – Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education, Children

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.164857

Isle of Wight Council v Platt: SC 6 Apr 2017

Regular school attendance is following the rules

The respondent had taken his child out of school during term time to go on holiday. The child otherwise had an excellent attendance record. The Council having failed on appeal to the Administrative Court, it appealed saying that the word ‘regularly’ did not refer only to the the times of attendance.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded. Against the background history of the legislation, the court considered three possible meanings of ‘regualrly’, rejecting against that background meanings other than ‘In accordance with the rules’: ‘in section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996, ‘regularly’ means ‘in accordance with the rules prescribed by the school”.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
UKSC 2016/0155
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 31 Jan 17 am, SC 31 Jan 17 pm
Education Act 1996 444(1), Elementary Education Act 1870 5, Elementary Education Act 1880 2, Education Act 1944, Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Isle of Wight Council v Platt Admn 13-May-2016
The Council appealed by case stated against a decision by magistrates that a parent who took his child out of school to take a holiday hod not failed to ensure that the child attended regularly. The record was otherwise regular and satisfactory.
Cited – London County Council v Maher 1929
The list of permissible reasons for non attendance at school listed in the 1870 Act is non-exclusive. . .
Cited – Ex parte the School Board of London, In re Murphy 1877
Cockburn CJ said ‘an occasional omission might suffice’ to constitute the offence under the bye-laws of not securing the regular attendance of a child at school, contrasting it with the graver sanction of a school attendance order which might result . .
Cited – Marshall v Graham 1907
Parents were prosecuted for failing to send their children to school on Ascension Day. They argued that Ascension Day was a day ‘exclusively set aside for religious observance’ by the Church of England.
Held: A Church which is established is . .
Cited – Hares v Curtin 1913
. .
Cited – Bunt v Kent 1914
. .
Cited – Osborne v Martin 1927
The parent had withdrawn his child from school every week for piano lessons. The court heard an appeal by the prosecutor against dismissal of a charge of failing to secure the child’s attendance at school.
Held: The parent had to cause the . .
Cited – Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Warman Admn 19-Nov-1998
A fifteen year old girl absented herself from school when she went to live with a boyfriend at an address which was not known to her mother. The justices acquitted the mother for failing to secure her attendance at school on the basis of ‘any . .
Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court and others Admn 28-Jun-2005
A 15-year-old girl did not go to school because she was bullied there and her mother kept her away.
Held: the mother had failed to meet her duties under the Act. . .
Cited – Hinchley v Rankin QBD 1961
A father had been rightly convicted when his son had been recorded as absent because he had not been at school when the register was closed, for ‘it must be regular attendance for the period prescribed by the person upon whom the duty to provide the . .
Not followed – Crump v Gilmore 1969
Justices had found as facts, on a prosecution for non attendance of their child, that the parents had not known about relevant absences until after the event, and that there had been no neglect on their part. The justices acquitted the parents but . .
Cited – London Borough of Bromley v C Admn 7-Mar-2006
The authority appealed an acquittal by the magistrates of the mother of three children of failing to secure their regular attendance. . Records showed that out of 114 possible attendances in each case, E had 72 attendances, G had 74 and B had 78. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.581425

Orsus And Others v Croatia: ECHR 16 Mar 2010

(Grand Chamber) Fifteen Croatians of Roma origin complained that they were victims of racial discrimination in that they were segregated into Roma-only classes and consequently suffered educational, psychological and emotional damage.
Held: The Court observed that only Roma children had been placed in the special classes in the schools concerned. The Government attributed the separation to the pupils’ lack of proficiency in Croatian; however, the tests determining their placement in such classes did not focus specifically on language skills, the educational programme subsequently followed did not target language problems and the children’s progress was not clearly monitored. The placement of the applicants in Roma-only classes was therefore unjustified, in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14. Whilst Croatia had a margin of appreciation, the State must have sufficient regard to the special needs of Roma children as members of a disadvantaged group. Croatia had violated their rights under Article 14 taken together with A2P1 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under A2P1 standing alone.

Jean-Paul Costa, P
[2010] ECHR 337, 15766/03, [2010] ELR 445, 28 BHRC 558, (2011) 52 EHRR 7
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Orsus And Others v Croatia ECHR 17-Jul-2008
. .

Cited by:
Cited – A v Essex County Council SC 14-Jul-2010
The claimant, a severely disabled child sought damages, saying that for well over a year, the local authority had made no provision for his education.
Held: His appeal against the striking out of his action failed. The correct approach had . .
Cited – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education, Discrimination

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.421521

E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another: Admn 3 Jul 2008

The court considered the impact of secular discrimination policy on admissions policies of religious schools.
Held: A school admissions policy which gave priority to children of their designated faith did not discriminate unlawfully either directly or indirectly on racial grounds.

Munby J
[2008] EWHC 1535 (Admin), Times 18-Jul-2008, [2008] ACD 87, [2008] ELR 445
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976
England and Wales
Cited by:
Principle judgement – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 16-Jul-2008
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Appeal from – E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another CA 25-Jun-2009
E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested . .
At First Instance – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body Of JFS and Another CA 10-Jul-2009
. .
At First Instance – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
See also – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.270619

Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council: SC 14 Mar 2018

Burchell case remains good law

The appellant head teacher had been dismissed for failing to disclose the fact that her partner had been convicted of a sex offence. She now appealed from rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that it was a reasonable response for the panel to have concluded that Ms Reilly’s non-disclosure not only amounted to a breach of duty but also merited her dismissal. For her refusal to accept that she had been in breach of duty suggested a continuing lack of insight which, as it was reasonable to conclude, rendered it inappropriate for her to continue to run the school. ‘the three requirements identified by Arnold J [in Burchell] do not well fit the inquiry mandated by what is now section 98(4). It is indeed clear that, on the contrary, they were directed to the first part of the inquiry under what is now section 98(1) to (3).’
Hale LJ discussed Burchell: ‘There may be very good reasons why no-one has challenged the Burchell test before us. First, it has been applied by Employment Tribunals, in the thousands of cases which come before them, for 40 years now. It remains binding upon them and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal. Destabilising the position without a very good reason would be irresponsible. Second, Parliament has had the opportunity to clarify the approach which is intended, should it consider that Burchell is wrong, and it has not done so. Third, those who are experienced in the field, whether acting for employees or employers, may consider that the approach is correct and does not lead to injustice in practice.’

Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2018] UKSC 16, UKSC 2016/0170
Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Hearing am, SC Hearing pm
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4), Education Act 2002 175(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT – A v B and Another EAT 20-Feb-2014
EAT Unfair Dismissal – The Employment Tribunal was not wrong in law, or perverse, or in breach of Article 8 to conclude that, in all the circumstances described by the ET, the Respondent decision taker was . .
Appeal from – A v B Local Authority and Another CA 19-Jul-2016
The appellant was a head teacher at a primary school, of which the second respondent was the governing body, until she was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in May 2011. The reason for her dismissal was that she had failed to reveal to the . .
Cited – Orr v Milton Keynes Council CA 1-Feb-2011
The employee was involved in offensive and insubordinate behaviour with his team leader. He was dismissed by a more senior manager, after a hearing in which the first manager gave evidence but which the claimant did not attend. It was later shown . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission PC 26-Jun-1995
(New Zealand) The New Zealand statute required a holder of specified investments to give notice of its holding to a regulator as soon as it became aware of its holding. Unbeknown to any others in the company apart from one colleague, its chief . .
Cited – Orr v Milton Keynes Council CA 1-Feb-2011
The employee was involved in offensive and insubordinate behaviour with his team leader. He was dismissed by a more senior manager, after a hearing in which the first manager gave evidence but which the claimant did not attend. It was later shown . .
Cited – Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd CA 16-Nov-2012
The employee, a train ticket conductor, was accused without direct evidence of manipulating her machine to produce false tickets which she was then said to have sold.
Held: Elias LJ said that the Tribunal: ‘has to ask whether the employer . .
Cited – Redbridge London Borough Council v Fishman EAT 1978
Unfair and wrongful dismissal are separate and distinct causes of action. Phillips J said: ‘The jurisdiction based on paragraph 6 (8) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has not got much to do with contractual rights and . .
Cited – Redbridge London Borough Council v Fishman EAT 1978
Unfair and wrongful dismissal are separate and distinct causes of action. Phillips J said: ‘The jurisdiction based on paragraph 6 (8) of Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has not got much to do with contractual rights and . .
Cited – Weston Recovery Services v Fisher EAT 7-Oct-2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Employment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range . .
Cited – Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd EAT 10-Nov-1999
An employee did not return to work after a presentation to him of a good service award, because he had drunk alcohol. A new policy required staff not to return to work after consuming alcohol, but had also said that alcohol would not be provided. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.606038

Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust: CA 23 Jun 2016

The Appellant claimed to have suffered indirect sex discrimination in connection with a work placement which she was offered as part of her studies to become a nurse, and she brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. The issue raised by this appeal is whether the ET had jurisdiction to entertain her claim or whether, as it and the Employment Appeal Tribunal both held, she should have proceeded in the County Court. That depends on whether the claim falls under Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010, which is concerned with discrimination at work, or under Part 6, which is concerned with discrimination in education. The issue is of some general importance because it is a standard part of very many educational courses with a vocational element .
Held: The employment tribunal did have jurisdiction.
Underhill LJ said: ‘I summarise what I believe to be the effect of sections 55 and 56, construed so as to give effect to the relevant Directives. The starting-point in any case is to identify the nature of the student’s complaint – that is, whether it is about discriminatory access to a work placement or about discrimination occurring during the placement.
(1) If the claim is about access – either that the university has failed to provide a placement at all or that it has done so in a discriminatory way – it can only be brought under section 91, and thus in the County Court. The primary claim will inevitably be against the university, because it is the university that has the responsibility for the provision of access, and it is hard therefore to see any role for sections 109 and 110; but if the provider has induced or aided that contravention it will be secondarily liable under section 111 or 112 and the student can proceed against it (in the County Court) as well as, or instead of, the university.
(2) If the claim is about discrimination by the provider in the course of the work placement, the provider will typically have done the act complained of as a principal and will thus be primarily liable for that discrimination under section 55, with the forum for any proceedings being the Employment Tribunal. There may be untypical cases where the act was done by the provider as the agent of the university. In those cases both the university and the provider will be liable, by virtue of sections 109 (2) and 110 (1) respectively, but the liability will still arise under section 55, so that the ET will still be the correct forum whether the claimant chooses to proceed against only one of them or against both. The university may of course also in a particular case be liable, depending on the facts, under sections 111 or 112 as having induced or assisted the discrimination. Any such claim will, again, have to be brought in the ET: see sections 114 (1) (e) and 120 (1) (b).

Patten, Lewison, Underhill LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 607, [2016] IRLR 878, [2016] WLR(D) 336, [2016] ICR 903
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust EAT 22-Sep-2014
EAT Sex Discrimination: Indirect – Discrimination by other bodies
Indirect Sex Discrimination – Employment service-providers (section 55 Equality Act 2010) – Students: admission and treatment etc (section . .

Cited by:
Cited – Nwabueze v University of Law Ltd and Others CA 13-Nov-2020
No ET Jurisdiction for Non-employment claim
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for discrimination which she had brought in the Employment Tribunal rather than the County Court.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘if a body is a governing body of a university this displaces its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Education

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.565952

Velyo Velev v Bulgaria (Legal Summary): ECHR 27 May 2014

ECHR Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Right to education
Refusal to enrol remand prisoner in prison school: violation
Facts – In 2005 the applicant, a remand prisoner, requested to be enrolled in the prison school. His request was refused first by the prison authorities and ultimately by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Prison Governor reasoned that, if convicted, the applicant, who had a previous conviction, would be a recidivist and should thus be kept separately from the non-recidivist prisoners. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected his request on different grounds, holding that the right to education applied only to convicted prisoners, not remand prisoners.
Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: The Court recalled that lawfully detained prisoners continued to enjoy all fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, save for the right to liberty. Consequently, the applicant still had the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The right to education imposed a duty on Bulgaria to afford effective access to existing educational establishments, including prison schools. Consequently, the Government had the burden of showing that its exclusion of the applicant was foreseeable, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to that aim.
The Court found it open to doubt whether the exclusion was sufficiently foreseeable, as the relevant legislative framework provided that convicted prisoners had the right to be included in educational programmes and that provisions regarding convicted prisoners were equally applicable to remand prisoners. The lack of clarity in the statutory framework was reflected in the fact that the reasons given by the national authorities for his exclusion were different: the Prison Governor and the Ministry of Justice emphasised the applicant’s potential recidivism, while the Supreme Administrative Court focused on the applicant’s remand status.
The Government had relied on three different grounds to justify the applicant’s exclusion from the school. As to their first argument that it was inappropriate for the applicant to attend school with convicted prisoners, the Court observed that the the applicant did not have any objections and there was no evidence to show that remand prisoners would be harmed by attending school with convicted prisoners. Moreover, the Court did not consider the uncertainty of the length of the pre-trial detention to be a valid justification for exclusion from educational facilities. Finally, as regards the Government’s third argument that the applicant risked being sentenced as a recidivist, so it would not be in the interests of the non-recidivist prisoners to attend school with him, the Court recalled that the applicant was entitled to the presumption of innocence and thus could not be classified as a recidivist. In the light of these considerations, and recognising the applicant’s undoubted interest in completing his secondary education, the Court found that the refusal to enrol him in prison school had not been sufficiently foreseeable, had not pursued a legitimate aim or was proportionate to that aim.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

16032/07 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 711
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Velyo Velev v Bulgaria ECHR 27-May-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education, Prisons

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.533847

E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another: CA 25 Jun 2009

E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested that the policy ‘elides the grounds of an act with its motive, whereas what the legislation is concerned with is not its motive but its causation. A religious motive will not excuse discrimination on racial grounds.’
Held: The policy was discriminatory. ‘So long as a maintained faith school is undersubscribed, it cannot use religious criteria to allocate places. But once it is oversubscribed, it can lawfully restrict entry to children whom, or whose parents, it regards as sharing the school’s faith. This is not by reason of an affirmative enactment, but because such schools are exempted from the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief contained in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006.’ The decision between Jewish and non-Jewish children could be made on religious but not racial grounds. The test applied judge the student according to whether she was regarded as jewish by the orthodox jewish faith. That was a racial characterisation, and not an assessment of the applicant’s religion: ‘M was refused admission to JFS because his mother, and therefore he, was not regarded as Jewish. The school has been perfectly open in giving this as the ground of non-admission. There are of course theological reasons why M is not regarded as Jewish, but they are not the ground of non-admission: they are the motive for adopting it.’

Applying Mandla, ‘(a) that Jews constitute a racial group defined principally by ethnic origin and additionally by conversion, and (b) that to discriminate against a person on the ground that he or someone else either is or is not Jewish is therefore to discriminate against him on racial grounds. The motive for the discrimination, whether benign or malign, theological or supremacist, makes it no less and no more unlawful. Nor does the factuality of the ground. If for theological reasons a fully subscribed Christian faith school refused to admit a child on the ground that, albeit practising Christians, the child’s family were of Jewish origin, it is hard to see what answer there could be to a claim for race discrimination.’

Sedley LJ, Smith LJ, Rimer LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 626, Times 08-Jul-2009, [2009] PTSR 1442, [2009] ELR 407, [2009] ACD 69, [2009] 4 All ER 375
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976, Equality Act 2006 50(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 3-Jul-2008
The court considered the impact of secular discrimination policy on admissions policies of religious schools.
Held: A school admissions policy which gave priority to children of their designated faith did not discriminate unlawfully either . .
Leave to appeal – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 16-Jul-2008
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Cited – Zarczynska v Levy 1979
A white barmaid was dismissed for refusing to turn away black customers. She claimed in race discrimination.
Held: Treating people less favourably not because of their race but because of the race of others is also discrimination on grounds of . .
Cited – English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for harrassment and sex discrimination. Though heterosexual, he had been subject to persistent jokes that he was homosexual. The court first asked whether the alleged conduct was ‘on the grounds of sexual . .
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd 1980
The claimant had been moved to a different department to escape anti-Semitic harassment. He fell out (for non-racial reasons) with his colleagues in his new department and was disciplined.
Held: The fact that but for the earlier harassment he . .
Cited – Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee HL 24-Mar-1982
A private school had refused to admit the claimant, a sikh, because he would be unable to wear the school uniform. He claimed racial discrimination. The school denied that being a Sikh was a membership of a racial or ethnic group.
Held: Sikhs . .

Cited by:
Main CA Judgement – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body Of JFS and Another CA 10-Jul-2009
. .
At CA – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
See also – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.347197

Jarvis v Hampshire County Council: CA 23 Nov 1999

A child who did not receive sufficient education appropriate to his disability (dyslexia), did not acquire a right to claim in damages against the education authority. This applies both to claims of misfeasance in public office and in negligence. The authority owed him no direct duty of care. The claim of misfeasance implied dishonesty which would have to be clearly supported.
Times 23-Nov-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited by:
Appeal from – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.82500

The Board of Trustees of The Maradana Mosque v The Honourable Badi-Ud-Din Mahmud and Another: PC 19 Jan 1966

(Ceylon) the rules of natural justice had been violated.
Where statutory authority was given to a Minister to act if he was satisfied that a school is being administered in a certain way he was not given authority to act because he was satisfied that the school had been administered in that way. It could be said that the Minister had asked himself the wrong question: so he had, but he never brought himself within the area of his jurisdiction.
[1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 2, [1967] 1 AC 13, [1966] 1 All ER 545, [1966] 2 WLR 921, [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 2 All ER 989
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.581040

Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Warman: Admn 19 Nov 1998

A fifteen year old girl absented herself from school when she went to live with a boyfriend at an address which was not known to her mother. The justices acquitted the mother for failing to secure her attendance at school on the basis of ‘any unavoidable cause’ but the prosecutor’s appeal to the Divisional Court was allowed for the same reasons as in Jenkins v Howels and Crump v. Gilmore, both of which were followed.
Held: The construction placed of this statutory provision in the authorities makes the conclusion inescapable that the circumstances did not give rise to unavoidable cause for the child’s absence from school.
Lord Justice Rose
[1999] ELR 81, [1998] EWHC Admin 1078
Bailii
Education Act 1993 444
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Berezovsky and Another v Forbes Inc and Another CA 27-Nov-1998
Where a defamatory article was published in many jurisdictions, there is no rule preventing a plaintiff recovering in those jurisdictions where a remedy is given. Not confined by restriction to most appropriate jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Isle of Wight Council v Platt SC 6-Apr-2017
Regular school attendance is following the rules
The respondent had taken his child out of school during term time to go on holiday. The child otherwise had an excellent attendance record. The Council having failed on appeal to the Administrative Court, it appealed saying that the word ‘regularly’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.139199

Thomas v University of Bradford: HL 1987

The lecturer sought an order for the University to comply with what he understood were its own rules. The House considered the availability of a remedy of certiorari in challenging a decision of the University visitors.
Held: A university is not a public body and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. Where an applicant’s Convention Rights, in particular Art 6, are not engaged then the matters in dispute would presently fall exclusively within the visitorial jurisdiction of the university – subject only to the possibility that any ultimate decision of the Board of Visitors might itself be judicially reviewable. Someone such as a professor may be both office holder and employee.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the visitor is in English law beyond doubt and established by an unbroken line of authority spanning the last three centuries from Philips v Bury (1694) Skin 447 to Hines v Birkbeck College (1985) 3 All ER 15L.’ and ‘I now turn to consider the scope of the visitatorial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction stems from the power recognised by the common law in the founder of an eleemosynary corporation to provide the laws under which the object of his charity was to be governed and to be sole judge of the interpretation and application of these laws either by himself or by such person as he should appoint as a visitor.’
Lord Griffiths
[1987] 1 AC 795, [1987] 1 All ER 834, [1987] ICR 245, [1987] 2 WLR 677
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Philips v Bury PC 1694
A university visitor, acting as a judge has exclusive jurisdiction, and his decision is final in all matters within his jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:
Remarks Explained – Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.542701

Durand Academy Trust, Regina (on Application of) v The Office for Standards In Education, Children’ Services and Skills and Another: Admn 11 Aug 2017

His Honour Judge McKenna
[2017] EWHC 2097 (Admin), [2017] ELR 444, [2018] PTSR 604, [2017] ACD 116, [2017] WLR(D) 568
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Durand Education Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Education CA 8-Dec-2020
A PSED breach can vitiate an impugned decision or action (‘outcome’), subject to principles of materiality and the statutory test of ‘highly likely: not substantially different’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.593608

Langley Park School for Girls, Regina (on the Application of) v Bromley London Borough Council: Admn 25 Feb 2009

Wyn Williams J
[2009] EWHC 324 (Admin), [2009] BLGR 509, [2009] JPL 1210
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Langley Park School for Girls v London Borough of Bromley and Another CA 31-Jul-2009
Appeal against an Order dismissing the Appellant’s application for judicial review of a grant of planning permission by the Respondent to the Interested Party for the demolition of existing school buildings, the retention and refurbishment of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.314292

Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford: QBD 7 Feb 2018

[2018] EWHC 184 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 2016
Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 5-Dec-2016
The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.604813

Martin and Another v OFSTED; FT 12 Nov 2008

References: [2008] UKFTT 6 (HESC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio Appeal under regulation 12(1) of the Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers)(Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 against the suspension under regulation 8 of their registration as childminders.
Statutes: Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers)(Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 12(1)

Last Update: 23-Apr-16
Ref: 311984

Regina v Secretary of State for Education ex parte Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass; 12 Apr 1985

References: Times 12-Apr-1985
Coram: Woolf J
The school challenged a decision of the respondent Secretary of State to the effect that it was not providing suitable education with the threatened loss of its accreditation. The teaching was based upon a narrow bible-centred fundamentalism.
Held: Woolf J said: ‘education is ‘suitable’ if it primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child’s options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so.’ However: ‘the Secretary of State is entitled to regard a particular form of education as being too narrow but the requirements he lays down must not go beyond that which is necessary in his opinion to make the education suitable and he should be sensitive to the traditions of the minority sect and only interfere with them so far as this is necessary to make the school suitable.’

Malnak v Yogi; 2 Feb 1979

Links: Worldlii
Coram: Aldisert, Adams and Hunter, Circuit Judges
United States Court of Appeals – Third Circuit. The court considered whether the programme of teaching transcendental meditation and its associated Science of Creative Intelligence was a religious activity and so was not to be allowed to be taught in state schools.
Held: It was such. Judge Adams, said that religion bore the same meaning in that context as in the free exercise of religion clause of the Constitution, noting that the law had moved towards a broader approach in recognition of the fact that adherence to the traditional definition would deny religious identification to the faiths adhered to by millions of Americans.
Adams J thought that it wa one thing to conclude ‘by analogy’ that a particular group of ideas is religious; it was quite another to explain what indicia are to be looked at in making such an analogy and justifying it. He identified three such indicia.
The first was that the belief system is concerned with the ultimate questions of human existence: the meaning of life and death, mankind’s role in the universe, the proper moral code of right and wrong. The second was that the belief system is comprehensive in the sense that it provides an all-embracing set of beliefs in answer to the ultimate questions. The third was that there were external signs that the belief system was of a group nature which could be analogised to accepted religions. Such signs might include formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organisation, and attempts at propagation. These indicia were not to be thought of as a final test for a religion. Rather, they were features which recognised religions would typically exhibit.
This case is cited by: