A, R (on the application of) v West Hatch High School

For a further mid-year school admission application after an unsuccessful appeal, the relevant question is whether there has been a significant and material change in the circumstances of the parent, child or school relevant to the application.

The admission of siblings after the first application does not necessarily constitute such a change where the parent’s objective of securing places for all children at the same school was unchanged. Admissions authorities may apply different criteria to initial admission applications and later mid-year applications, including omitting sibling criteria from the latter, provided the approach is clear and lawful.

The claimant sought judicial review of the governing body’s refusal to reconsider her daughter S’s mid-year application for admission to West Hatch High School. S’s two older siblings had been admitted after the claimant’s first application for all three children had been refused or allowed in part on appeal.

The governing body treated the later application as a repeat application and relied on paragraph 4.83 of the School Admissions Appeals Code of Practice, concluding that there had been no significant and material change in circumstances. The claimant alleged irrationality and failure to consider medical and social evidence. She also challenged the use of different criteria for initial admissions and mid-year applications.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant had not established a sufficient material change of circumstances requiring reconsideration of S’s application.
2. The governing body was entitled to apply paragraph 4.83 of the School Admissions Appeals Code of Practice. The relevant inquiry was what circumstances had changed and how those changes could affect the further application. S’s medical needs had not materially changed, and the evidence did not show that she required treatment or special assistance at school.
3. The admission of S’s two siblings between the first and second applications did not, without more, amount to a significant and material change. The claimant had sought to have all three children educated at the same school on both occasions. Her continuing intention was therefore not a changed circumstance relevant to the further application.
4. The governing body was entitled to rely on mid-year admission criteria. It was permissible to apply sibling criteria to initial year 7 admissions but not to mid-year applications, where the distinction was expressly and clearly made. Applying the criterion at one stage and not another did not make the admission arrangements unlawful.
5. An additional challenge concerning the handling of mid-year applications and other year groups had not been raised in the grounds or covered by the permission granted. It was also irrelevant to the issue before the court.
6. The defendants were awarded costs, but the order was not enforceable without leave of the court.