Uplands Junior School, R (On the Application Of) v Leicester City Council & Anor

Under Part IV of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, a warning notice may require a maintained school’s governing body to engage and communicate with the local authority where that is reasonably considered necessary to remedy an identified management or governance breakdown. Such a requirement is not invalid merely because engagement and communication are continuing activities, or because the notice does not prescribe every step in detail, provided its meaning is clear in context. Compliance may be assessed throughout the specified period, particularly where the requirement is continuing. A local authority may rely on the governing body’s conduct during that period when deciding whether it is satisfied that compliance has occurred. Reasonable notice of intervention may arise from the warning notice and subsequent clear correspondence. A breach of a clear promise to seek engagement may be remedied without relief where the court is satisfied that engagement could not have affected the outcome.

The governing body of a maintained primary school sought judicial review of Leicester City Council’s intervention under Part IV of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The Council had served a warning notice following serious breakdowns in relationships and management, falling standards, and disagreement over the handling of disciplinary matters. The notice required the governing body, among other things, to engage and communicate with the Council.

Ofsted confirmed the warning notice. The Council later concluded that the governing body had failed to comply with the engagement and communication requirement, suspended the school’s delegated budget, and suspended the headteacher. The governing body challenged the legality and clarity of the requirement, the assessment of compliance, the notice of intervention, and the headteacher’s suspension.

1. Warning notice requirements. The claim was dismissed, save for a finding concerning the Council’s failure to seek engagement before suspending the headteacher, in respect of which no order was made. “Action” in section 60(4)(b) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 may include continuing activities and a series of acts. Engagement and communication could therefore constitute action.
2. The action required by a warning notice must be directed to remedying the matters on which the local authority based its conclusion that there had been a serious breakdown. Improved engagement and communication could reasonably be regarded as capable of remedying the identified breakdown in management and governance. It was unnecessary for the notice separately to identify the absence of engagement and communication as one of the matters constituting the breakdown.
3. The third requirement was sufficiently clear. Its meaning was clear on its face and in context, particularly because engagement with the Council concerned employment matters and other governance matters reasonably known to be of concern.
4. Where a warning notice requires a single act, completion before expiry of the compliance period may suffice. A continuing requirement may, however, require conduct during the period. The Council was entitled to consider the governing body’s communication and conduct throughout the 15-day period when deciding whether it was satisfied that the requirement had been met. Its conclusion was not irrational.
5. The Council had given reasonable notice of its proposed intervention. The statutory timetable already incorporated an opportunity to challenge the warning notice, and the governing body had received clear notice for more than two months of the proposed consequences of non-compliance.
6. The Council had made a clear and unambiguous promise to seek engagement after suspending the delegated budget. It failed to do so before suspending the headteacher. That was unlawful and unfair in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the court was satisfied that engagement could not realistically have produced a different outcome, so no relief was granted on that ground.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The claim was dismissed, subject to the court’s finding that the Council failed to seek engagement before suspending the headteacher, in respect of which no order was made.