AB, R (on the application of) v A County Council & Anor

Judicial review is supervisory. It is not a vehicle for the court to resolve general disputes about education policy or competing evidence on multifactorial social-policy questions.

An applicant must show a sufficient interest in the matter under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(3). A personal concern, whistle-blowing activity or disagreement with a school’s decision does not necessarily establish standing. A claim must also be brought promptly and within three months. Where the challenged decision concerns the education of a young and vulnerable child, delay may be particularly significant.

The claimant, a teacher at a school, sought renewed permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning the defendants’ approach to the education and safeguarding of Child X, including policies relating to gender issues and social transition.

The court considered whether the claimant had standing, whether the claim against the school was brought promptly, and whether the proposed grounds disclosed arguable errors of public law, including an alleged failure to enquire properly into expert material. The court also considered the institutional limits of judicial review in relation to multifactorial social policy.

1. Renewed application refused. The claimant had not shown a sufficient interest in the matter and had no standing, even arguably, to bring the claim. Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the court to consider that an applicant has such an interest before granting permission. The claimant did not teach Child X, did not represent Child X, and did not hold a special public-interest role. General safeguarding responsibilities in statutory guidance did not confer a right on every teacher to challenge a school decision. The possible intrusion into Child X’s private life, without Child X or the parents being parties, also weighed against standing.
2. The claim against the school was out of time. The relevant decision was made in October 2021, whereas proceedings were commenced in April 2022. Later correspondence did not constitute a new decision. The claimant’s communications with the county council did not provide a good reason to extend time. In an educational case concerning a young and vulnerable child, promptness was critical.
3. The proposed grounds were not arguable with a reasonable prospect of success. Courts are slow to intervene in multifactorial social-policy decisions because of the institutional competence of democratic decision-makers. The claimant’s challenge sought to turn a policy disagreement into a question of logic or law.
4. There was no duty on the defendants to consider everything the claimant supplied, regardless of relevance or content, or to accept expert evidence from other proceedings. The school’s response was legally adequate. The material relied on formed part of a public debate but had no special status requiring further enquiry, and disclosed no arguable breach of the duty of enquiry associated with the Tameside case.

The court recorded that the ruling was a permission decision relating to the issues in the claim and was not citable in other cases.