C, R (on the application of) v The Admission Panel of Nottinghamshire County Council

An appeal panel deciding a school-admission appeal must communicate the grounds of its decision in writing. A standard form letter may suffice for a simple request for general review raising no substantial issue. It is insufficient where the appeal raises a material factual or procedural issue requiring individual treatment. The statutory limit on infant class sizes does not remove that duty. Reasons need not be elaborate, but they must explain, in the particular case, why the appellant’s arguments did not outweigh the prejudice relied upon by the admission authority.

The claimant challenged the dismissal of her appeal against the refusal of a place for her younger daughter at a primary school. The appeal panel’s standard form letter stated that infant class size prejudice would result from admitting another child and that the statutory grounds for allowing the appeal were not established. It did not address the claimant’s individual arguments, including an alleged assurance by the head teacher that a place would be available because her older daughter attended the school, and the practical difficulty of taking children to different schools.

The claimant sought judicial review on the ground that the panel had failed to give adequate reasons under regulation 1.8 of the Education (Admissions Appeals Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002.

1. The application was allowed. The panel’s decision letter did not explain the basis on which the claimant’s appeal was rejected. The later solicitor’s letter and witness statement merely asserted that all relevant matters had been considered.
2. Regulation 1.8 of the Education (Admissions Appeals Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002 required the panel to communicate its decision and the grounds on which it was made. That duty had to be reconciled with the administrative need to deal efficiently with a large number of appeals, but administrative convenience could not displace it.
3. A standard form decision may be adequate where the appellant makes only a simple request for general review and raises no substantial issue. Where a material issue arises, the decision must address the particular case and explain, briefly but intelligibly, why the appeal failed. The court adopted the approach in R v Birmingham City Council Education Appeals Committee ex parte B [1999] ELR 305, and the related authorities.
4. The statutory limit on infant class sizes, imposed by section 1 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and given effect by SI 1998/1973, restricted the panel’s powers but did not eliminate the duty to give reasons. The panel still had to consider whether the refusal was unreasonable in light of the appellant’s case.
5. The alleged assurance concerning a school place raised a factual issue which the panel had to resolve and explain. The transport issue alone might have been treated as a routine matter, but the guarantee issue made the failure to give reasons substantive rather than merely formal.

Permission to appeal was refused. Costs were refused because the pre-action protocol had not been observed. The claimant was to remain identified as “C”.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was initially refused on the papers by Ouseley J and was subsequently granted by Munby J. The High Court allowed the application.