All Saints Academy Dunstable, R (on the application of) v Ofsted & Anor

Ofsted has a broad discretion under Education and Inspections Act 2006 to devise an inspection framework, including graded judgments. The court will not substitute its view on the merits of that framework unless unlawfulness, irrationality or procedural unfairness is arguable.

Inspection, reporting, quality assurance and complaints procedures should generally be assessed as a whole. A policy is not an unlawful fetter where the decision-maker retains a discretion to depart from it. In challenges to evaluative inspection judgments, dissatisfaction with the outcome is insufficient; a material error or irrationality must be shown.

Interim restraint of an Ofsted report requires a particularly strong case and compelling reasons. The public interest in prompt publication is a significant consideration.

The claimant school sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning an Ofsted graded inspection conducted in November 2022 and January 2023. The first inspection produced more favourable provisional judgments, but quality assurance identified weaknesses in its evidence base and a further inspection was undertaken. The second inspection resulted in substantially more adverse provisional judgments, which were maintained after factual accuracy checks and the complaints process.

The school challenged the grading framework, the treatment of safeguarding, the fairness and conduct of the inspection, the adequacy of reasons, alleged factual errors, the complaints process, and Ofsted’s refusal to delay publication. It also sought interim relief restraining publication of the final report.

1. Permission and inspection framework. Permission was refused on Grounds 1 to 4 and 7 to 10. The Chief Inspector has a broad discretion under section 133 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to establish the inspection framework. The court could not decide whether single-word grades were desirable or politically acceptable. The framework was not irrational or inherently unfair merely because it involved evaluative judgments or attracted disagreement. Detailed criteria, prescribed guidance and quality assurance reduced the risk of inconsistent grading.
2. Safeguarding and policy discretion. An inadequate or ineffective safeguarding judgment did not automatically require inadequate judgments for leadership and management or overall effectiveness. The relevant guidance created a general approach, but retained discretion to depart from it. That was not an unlawful fetter: a policy may lawfully guide the exercise of discretion provided departure remains possible. The approach was rational given the importance of safeguarding.
3. Fairness and irrationality. The inspection, reporting, quality assurance, moderation and complaints procedures were to be considered as a whole. The claimant had not shown an arguable case that the inspectors’ conduct made the process unfair. Nor had it shown material errors of fact or irrationality. The court would not re-evaluate the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of specialist inspectors exercising evaluative functions within a statutory framework.
4. Grounds 5 and 6. Permission was granted, with considerable reservations, for a narrower challenge concerning whether the school had received sufficient information to contest the proposed findings and whether the report gave adequate reasons. The unusual sequence of two inspections, the difference between the provisional outcomes, the likely damaging effect of the report and the absence of authoritative consideration of these issues made them arguable. The court noted that adequacy of reasons had to be assessed by reference to the statutory purpose of the report.
5. Interim relief. The application to restrain publication was refused. In public law claims the court must minimise the risk of injustice while taking account of the wider public interest. Publication of Ofsted reports serves an important public interest and should generally occur promptly. The claimant had not established a strong prima facie case, and the circumstances were neither exceptional nor compelling enough to justify delaying publication.

First-instance judicial review permission and interim-relief decision. Permission was granted only for reformulated issues concerning disclosure of sufficient information and adequacy of reasons; permission was refused on the remaining grounds. Publication of the final Ofsted report was not restrained.