McCormack, R (on the application of) v St Edmund Campion Catholic School & Ors

A governing body must comply with the mandatory conflict-of-interest procedure in the School Governance Procedures England Regulations 2003. Where a fair hearing is required and reasonable impartiality is in doubt, the relevant person must withdraw and must not vote. Any dispute must be determined by the other governors present. A general reminder to consider impartiality is insufficient where challenged governors remain involved.

A staff governor may be suspended while an employment investigation continues. The Secretary of State’s intervention power involves a threshold decision followed by a discretion on expediency. It was not irrational to consider the imminent resolution of the claimant’s employment status.

The claimant, a teacher and elected staff governor, sought judicial review of his six-month suspension from governing-body meetings. He challenged the governing body’s compliance with regulations 14 and 15 of the School Governance Procedures England Regulations 2003, including whether he was subject to disciplinary proceedings while an investigation was continuing.

He also challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 to direct the governing body to reconsider the suspension, and alleged unreasonable delay. The central issues were the effect of procedural failures, the scope of the suspension power, and whether the Secretary of State’s decision was unlawful.

1. Suspension pending investigation. The claimant was subject to disciplinary proceedings for the purposes of regulation 15(1)(a) of the School Governance Procedures England Regulations 2003. The phrase was not confined to a formal post-investigation disciplinary hearing. Permission on this ground was refused.
2. Conflict-of-interest procedure. Regulations 14(2) and 14(5) required compliance with a defined procedure. The challenged governors remained present and voted on the issue, while the other governors did not determine each position separately. The chairman’s general reminder that each governor should consider his or her own position was not substantial compliance. The court found a fundamental disregard of the prescribed procedure, although it did not decide whether substantial compliance could ever suffice.
3. The claimant had an effective opportunity to make representations and had used it. There was therefore no breach of natural justice on that ground.
4. Under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996, the Secretary of State had to address the relevant threshold question but retained a discretion whether intervention was expedient. It was not irrational to consider the imminent disciplinary hearing, the claimant’s employment-linked status, and the limited practical benefit of directing a fresh meeting.
5. The delay challenge failed because the volume and breadth of the claimant’s material created genuine difficulties for the Department.
6. The claim was dismissed. Although the court found non-compliance with regulation 14, it declined to grant a formal declaration because the Secretary of State had already identified the defect and formal relief would have no practical effect. The judgment nevertheless provided guidance on future compliance.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. Earlier applications concerning previous suspensions had been refused permission by His Honour Judge Purle QC and His Honour Judge Oliver Jones QC.