Gassa & Anor, R (on the application of) v Richmond Independent Appeals Service & Anor

An appeal panel’s decision must give clear, intelligible reasons explaining how and why disputed issues of fact and law were resolved. Where the decision is quashed and remitted, the court will generally avoid deciding issues that remain for a specialist appeal panel, particularly where the issues may be fact-sensitive or may not determine the outcome. The statutory school-admission scheme and the Appeals Code distinguish between section 3 and section 4 appeals. Section 4 appeals attract a restricted review of the admission authority’s reasonableness in infant class-size cases. The court expressed the provisional view that an appeal panel’s consideration of whether admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied is review-based, but left that issue for the fresh panel because it was unnecessary to determine it finally.

The claimants challenged the refusal to use their rented East Sheen address, rather than their retained Barnes flat, as their permanent home address for their son’s primary-school application. The address decision meant that their son was not offered a place at their preferred school. Their appeal was dismissed by the defendant appeal panel, which considered the matter under both section 3 and section 4 of the School Admissions Appeal Code.

The defendant and interested party conceded that the panel’s decision lacked adequate reasons and agreed that the appeal should be redetermined by a fresh panel. The claimants nevertheless sought guidance on the proper interpretation of the Admissions Code, the public-law limits on the Council’s approach to permanence, and whether the appeal panel’s function was to decide the address issue afresh or merely review the Council’s decision.

1. Decision quashed and remitted. The appeal panel was under duties in paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25 of the Appeals Code to provide a comprehensible decision and clear reasons explaining how and why issues of fact and law had been decided. It was insufficient merely to state conclusions. The decision was quashed and the appeal remitted to a differently constituted panel.
2. The remaining issues were not academic in the strict sense, since they might affect the fresh determination. Nevertheless, it was premature and inappropriate to decide them without a reasoned decision from the specialist appeal panel. The statutory scheme deliberately entrusted that body with first-instance consideration of compliance with admissions law and the correct and impartial application of admission arrangements.
3. The Council’s published approach to a “permanent home” raised legitimate questions about clarity, objectivity and procedural fairness, including whether ownership of another property, a short-term tenancy and an intention to purchase could operate as decisive conditions. Those questions should first be addressed by the fresh panel. If non-compliance were found, the panel would also have to decide whether the child would have obtained a place had the arrangements complied with the Admissions Code.
4. The court provisionally considered that the appeal was likely to fall under section 4 because the ultimate refusal arose from the infant class-size limit, even though the dispute principally concerned the address used in applying the oversubscription criteria. The issue was left for the fresh panel where necessary.
5. On the “decision” or “review” question, the court provisionally inclined to the view that the panel’s consideration of whether arrangements were correctly and impartially applied was a review function. The reasoning in R(M) Haringey v Independent Appeal Panel and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1103, together with R v South Gloucestershire Education Appeals Committee ex parte Bryant [2001] ELR 53 and R v London Borough of Richmond ex parte JC [2001] ELR 21, was persuasive. However, the point was not finally determined and was left to the fresh panel.

First-instance judicial review. The Appeal Panel’s decision was quashed and the claimants’ appeal was remitted to a fresh panel.