UK Curriculum and Accreditation Body t/a Scholars School System, R (on the application of) v Pearson Education Ltd

An appeal process cures an earlier procedural defect where the appellate body conducts a genuine rehearing, considers the evidence afresh and redetermines the merits. The adequacy of reasons is assessed practically and in context. A decision-maker need not address every submission, provided the reasons identify the conclusions on the principal controversial issues and enable the parties to understand the result. Non-legally qualified panels receive some latitude. However, reasons must be sufficiently clear concerning a significant sanction. Where a panel finds no personal malpractice and upholds an individual’s appeal, it is irrational or inadequately reasoned to leave an apparently inconsistent personal restriction in place. A tribunal may express a preliminary view without apparent bias, unless it demonstrates a closed mind.

The claimant, an educational charity delivering Pearson qualifications as a non-lead centre, challenged by judicial review the dismissal of its appeal against sanctions imposed by Pearson’s malpractice committee. The appeal panel upheld findings of malpractice involving plagiarism and failure to recruit with integrity, and maintained a ten-year restriction on applications for Pearson approval by the claimant. It separately upheld the chief executive’s appeal, finding that no specific malpractice had been identified against him.

Permission had been granted only to challenge the appeal decision dated 28 May 2024. The claimant alleged procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, irrationality and apparent bias. The central issue was whether the appeal panel’s procedure and reasoning were legally sufficient, including whether the individual sanction remained effective.

1. Procedural fairness. The malpractice committee should not have involved the investigator in drafting its determination. However, the appeal panel conducted a rehearing: it considered the evidence and issues afresh and did not apply a restricted unreasonableness review. Applying R (Gossip) v NHS Surrey Downs CCG and Calvin v Carr, the rehearing cured the earlier procedural defect.
2. Reasons. Reasons must be adequate, intelligible and practical. They must disclose how the principal controversial issues of law and fact were resolved, but need not answer every argument. The panel’s reasons sufficiently explained its findings on plagiarism, recruitment with integrity and the ten-year sanction against the claimant. The absence of an express finding that the investigation had followed correct procedures did not make the reasons legally inadequate.
3. Mr Bhatti. The panel’s reasons were materially unclear and irrational in relation to the individual sanction. The panel stated that no specific malpractice had been identified against Mr Bhatti and upheld his appeal. The accompanying lessons-learned document confirmed that the evidence did not establish his involvement or knowledge and that he should not be sanctioned. The panel therefore intended him to be free from sanction, including the purported restriction on holding a senior role in an approved organisation. Pearson was required to treat him accordingly and amend its records.
4. Rationality and bias. The panel was entitled to rely on the student interviews, the additional verification exercise and the 2023 CBC report. The evidence permitted a finding of serious, rather than merely procedural, malpractice. A preliminary view that there was sufficient evidence to proceed did not establish a closed mind or apparent bias.
5. The claimant therefore succeeded only in relation to the senior-role sanction affecting Mr Bhatti. Remission was unnecessary because, on the panel’s own findings, only one reasonable conclusion was available.

Permission was granted by Mr Justice Morris on 24 March 2025, limited to the appeal panel’s decision of 28 May 2024. Permission was refused for challenges to the earlier investigations, the malpractice committee decision and the jurisdictional issue.

The High Court (Administrative Court) allowed the challenge only insofar as the appeal panel’s decision left an inconsistent senior-role sanction against Mr Bhatti.