In re L (FC) (a minor by his father and litigation friend)(Appellant)

By a majority, the House held that reinstatement following permanent exclusion restores the legal relationship between a school and its pupil. It does not require substantial restoration of the pupil’s former social and educational arrangements.

The school must genuinely resume its responsibilities and treat the child consistently with pupil status. Subject to that requirement, the head teacher and governors retain their managerial discretion to impose proportionate special arrangements. They may consider discipline, safety, other pupils’ education, available resources and lawful industrial action by staff.

A purported reinstatement will fail if it is a sham or so nugatory that the school has not genuinely resumed the relationship.

A head teacher permanently excluded a pupil following his involvement in a serious assault on another pupil. The governing body upheld the exclusion, but an independent appeal panel directed the pupil’s immediate reinstatement under section 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

Because teachers refused to teach or supervise him in ordinary classes, the school restored him to its roll but educated him in a separate room. He had almost no contact with the school community and received face-to-face tuition only in mathematics.

Henriques J dismissed the pupil’s application for judicial review: [2001] EWHC Admin 318. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal: [2001] EWCA Civ 1199; [2001] LGR 561. The central issue was whether the segregated regime amounted to statutory reinstatement.

1. Appeal dismissed by a majority of three to two. Lord Hobhouse, Lord Scott and Lord Walker held that the pupil had been reinstated. Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann would have allowed the appeal. Since the pupil had left school, no effective reinstatement could in any event be ordered.

2. Per Lord Hobhouse, Lord Scott and Lord Walker, permanent exclusion terminates the pupil-school relationship. Reinstatement under sections 66 and 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 reverses that termination. The school must genuinely resume its responsibilities and obligations towards the pupil. Formal restoration to the roll is necessary but will not suffice where it is a sham or where the subsequent arrangements show that responsibility has not truly been resumed.

3. Reinstatement does not require restoration of the previous regime or full social and classroom reintegration. The appeal panel determines whether permanent exclusion should continue and may specify the timing of reinstatement. It cannot prescribe conditions governing the pupil’s subsequent education. Special educational, disciplinary and managerial arrangements remain matters for the head teacher and governors.

4. The arrangements must be consistent with pupil status and must fall within the school’s lawful managerial and pastoral discretion. The decision-maker may consider the pupil’s education, the safety and education of others, discipline, available resources and staff co-operation. Lord Scott and Lord Walker regarded reasonableness and proportionality as relevant to the lawfulness of the arrangements.

5. The segregated regime was severe and, in Lord Walker’s view, ill-advised. Nevertheless, it was adopted in good faith for a short period before GCSE study leave, provided supervised education and responded to safety concerns and threatened industrial action. It was not so extreme or disproportionate as to be unlawful or inconsistent with reinstatement.

6. Lord Bingham, dissenting, considered that reinstatement required substantial restoration of the position before exclusion, so far as practicable. A pupil had to be substantially reintegrated into the school’s social and educational life. Lord Hoffmann agreed and considered that the majority interpretation deprived reinstatement of much of its practical content.

1. House of Lords: By a majority of three to two, dismissed the pupil’s appeal from the Court of Appeal: [2003] UKHL 9.

2. Court of Appeal: Thorpe, Clarke and Laws LJJ dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion that the pupil had been reinstated: [2001] EWCA Civ 1199; [2001] LGR 561.

3. High Court: Henriques J dismissed the application for judicial review, following the approach in an earlier case concerning reinstatement: [2001] EWHC Admin 318.