London Borough of Lambeth, R (on the application of) v Lambeth Independent Appeals Panel & Anor

An admission appeal panel must decide an appeal within the statutory conditions and the published admission arrangements. It must give clear and adequate reasons showing how the relevant factual and legal questions were resolved. A panel cannot award a school place on the basis of alleged maladministration or communication failures where the child would not have qualified under the admission criteria. In judicial review, promptness is especially important where a child’s education and a school’s responsibilities are affected. Nevertheless, a short delay will not ordinarily justify leaving an unlawful decision in force where the public authority plainly had no power to make it and doing so would prejudice other children. The court’s discretion to refuse relief in such circumstances is narrow.

The London Borough of Lambeth challenged a decision of the Lambeth Independent Appeals Panel allowing an appeal against the refusal to admit AL to the reception class at Paxton Primary School. The Panel’s decision stated that the admission arrangements had not been properly implemented, but did not explain why AL would have obtained a place under those arrangements. The Panel’s minutes indicated that it had relied on alleged failures of communication, advice and administration, and had also considered the admission authority’s decision unreasonable.

The Council accepted that it had delayed in bringing the claim. The issues were whether permission or relief should nevertheless be refused because of delay, earlier alleged maladministration, failure to pursue alternative dispute resolution, acquiescence, or the effect on the child and her mother, and whether the Panel had power to allow the appeal.

1. Permission and relief. Permission to bring the judicial review claim was granted. The Panel’s decision of 15 December 2011 was quashed. Remission was not ordered because the appeal could not lawfully succeed on the material circumstances.
2. Unlawful appeal decision. The Panel had no power to allow the appeal on the ground that the admission arrangements had not been properly implemented. Even if the late application had been treated as timely, AL would not have secured a place under the published criteria. No medical or social priority case, supported by the required professional evidence, had been made in the application, and the distance criterion did not place AL within the admissions threshold.
3. Reasons. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Education (Admission Appeal Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002, read with the School Admission Appeal Code, required the Panel to communicate its decision and grounds adequately. The decision letter did not explain why AL would have been admitted if the arrangements had been properly implemented. The minutes could not cure that defect and disclosed reasoning outside the statutory grounds.
4. Delay and relief. The Council failed to act promptly, particularly because the dispute affected a child’s schooling and the school’s educational responsibilities. However, the delay was limited and the Panel’s decision was one it had no power to make. Applying the narrow discretion identified in Barclay v Secretary of State for the Environment (No 1) [2001] UKHL 36, [2001] 2 AC 603, the need to uphold the rule of law and avoid prejudice to other children justified extending time and granting relief.
5. Other matters. The alleged earlier maladministration, the absence of meaningful alternative dispute resolution, and the supposed acquiescence of Council-employed clerks did not justify preserving the unlawful decision. Responsibility for the Panel’s decision rested with the Panel, and any maladministration had to be addressed through other remedies.

The Council was awarded permission and its claim was allowed. The first interested party was given detailed assessment of her legally aided costs.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision. The Panel agreed before the hearing that its decision should be quashed, but the interested party resisted the grant of permission or relief.