SUZ v The Mount School Ltd

In an urgent application for interim relief, the court must assess whether there is a triable issue and consider its strength, the balance of convenience and the interests of justice.

Where a private school has contractual discretions concerning a pupil’s status during suspension and an ongoing review process, those discretions must arguably be exercised lawfully, reasonably, fairly and proportionately. The court may preserve existing arrangements for a short period where the issue would otherwise become irreversible, particularly where the school has previously permitted attendance and no imperative concern about disruption or safeguarding is shown.

The claimant parent sought urgent interim relief concerning her child’s attendance at lessons at the defendant school. The pupil had been suspended, but had continued attending lessons in person during the appeal process. After the appeal was dismissed shortly before the final week of lessons, the school refused further in-person attendance and offered remote access.

The application raised arguable issues concerning contractual discretion, procedural fairness, proportionality and the existence of a further complaint or review process. The defendant was given an opportunity to respond but did not appear or become represented at the hearing. The immediate question was whether in-person attendance should continue for the remaining days of the school term.

1. Interim relief. The application was granted. The court ordered the school to continue, until further order, the arrangements that had operated between 23 March and 30 April 2021, namely permitting the pupil to attend lessons in person.
2. Triable issue. There was a sufficient triable issue concerning the justification and proportionality of the school’s response. It was clearly arguable that the contractual duties of due process and procedural fairness had been breached by arranging the appeal hearing at very short notice, including over a bank holiday weekend, when the parents had explained that they could not attend.
3. Contractual discretions. The school, rather than the court, was the primary decision-maker. The Parent Contract arguably conferred discretion concerning the pupil’s status during the further complaint or review process and concerning the consequences of dismissing the appeal. Those discretions had to be exercised in a reasonable and lawful manner and with procedural fairness. The private-law duties were, for present purposes, broadly equivalent to duties encountered in public law.
4. Balance of convenience and justice. The balance strongly favoured interim relief. The requested order preserved an arrangement that the school had itself permitted for approximately six weeks. The remaining period was only two days, but those were the final teaching days before A-level examinations, and missed in-person lessons could not later be restored. Remote attendance had already presented difficulties. The school’s general reasons of disruption, discipline and online availability did not outweigh those considerations. The court noted that a different conclusion might have followed from an imperative concern relating to disruption or protection of other pupils.
5. The claim was to be commenced if necessary, with a return date for an inter partes hearing concerning continuation of the order. Liberty to apply was granted, the parties’ positions were reserved, and costs were reserved.