CKT & Anor, R (on the application of ) v Twyford Church of England Academies Trust & Ors

The exception for religious or belief-related discrimination in faith-school admissions does not exclude claims of indirect race discrimination. A claimant may establish particular racial disadvantage by inference from relevant evidence despite incomplete statistics. Parliamentary recognition of the public interest in faith schools is relevant both to legitimate aim and to proportionality. Proportionality requires scrutiny of justification, but does not invariably require calculations of alternative admission percentages or identification of the single least restrictive measure. An appeal concerning a school’s particular arrangements ordinarily involves review of the first-instance proportionality assessment. Compliance with the public sector equality duty is substantive and context-sensitive. It may be established from evidence of conscious consideration of equality impacts and measures addressing them; awareness of statutory obligations alone is insufficient.

Twyford Church of England Academies Trust operated four secondary schools. Twyford Church of England High School alone used faith-based oversubscription criteria. Applicants for its 150 foundation places could obtain 20 points for Christian worship and an additional point where their family’s main place of worship was Anglican. In the relevant year, applicants needed 21 points to obtain a foundation place.

CKT and her son attended an Eritrean Orthodox church. Her son obtained 20 points and was refused admission. An admissions appeal panel dismissed their appeal. CKT also unsuccessfully objected to materially identical arrangements for the following year before the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. Judicial review claims alleged indirect race discrimination and, against the Trust, breach of the public sector equality duty.

Bourne J dismissed both claims in [2025] EWHC 2396 (Admin). The appeals challenged his treatment of statutory permission for faith-based admissions, proportionality, equality duties and the alternative refusal of relief. Respondents’ notices disputed the availability of a race discrimination claim and proof of racial disadvantage. The central questions were whether the criterion was objectively justified and whether the Trust had discharged its equality duty.

Both appeals were dismissed unanimously.

1. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 to the Equality Act 2010 excepted direct and indirect discrimination defined by reference to religion or belief. It did not exempt indirect race discrimination arising from faith-based admissions criteria. The wording, statutory context and legislative history supported that interpretation. Parliamentary recognition of faith schools nevertheless remained relevant to legitimate aim and proportionality (paras 54–63).
2. The claimants had to establish facts supporting an inference of particular disadvantage. Complete statistical evidence was unnecessary. Evidence that non-Anglican congregations contained greater proportions of non-white or non-English worshippers entitled the judge to infer significant racial disadvantage from the additional Anglican point, although its precise extent could not be quantified (paras 66–67).
3. The appropriate appellate approach was review, applying Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. The assessment concerned one school’s particular arrangements. It raised no general principle, legislative challenge or sufficiently important wider issue requiring a fresh appellate assessment (paras 69–73).
4. The four-stage approach in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) was generally appropriate under section 19(2)(d). Considering less intrusive measures did not require identification of the single least restrictive means. The question included whether alternatives would unacceptably compromise the objective and whether the adopted measure was a reasonable, proportionate means of achieving it. That inquiry remained distinct from public law irrationality (paras 77–80, 84, 98).
5. The judge had properly scrutinised and accepted evidence explaining the school’s distinctive Anglican practices and its role within the Trust. Preserving that ethos was legitimate. The statutory public interest in faith schools could receive significant weight in the balance. The judge could consider the availability of places without faith-based criteria at the Trust’s other religious schools. Specific assessments of alternative admission percentages were unnecessary in this context. The criterion was justified on the evidence (paras 81–89, 94–103).
6. R (E) v Governing Body of JFS, R (Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice and R (Ward) v Hillingdon London Borough Council were distinguishable. Here, evidence addressed the reasons for adopting and maintaining the criterion. The majority’s observations on indirect discrimination in JFS were obiter (paras 90–93).
7. Section 149 required substantive, context-sensitive consideration of the specified equality needs when exercising the relevant function. Knowledge of obligations was relevant but inconclusive. The evidence supported findings that the Trust understood the religious and racial impacts, consciously considered alternative arrangements and addressed those impacts through its other schools. The judge could find compliance (paras 106–117).
8. The alternative refusal of relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 did not arise and was left undecided. The rejected proportionality grounds also disposed of the appeal concerning the adjudicator (paras 118–120).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 1364 , dismissed both appeals. Rejected the additional grounds asserting statutory exemption from indirect race discrimination and insufficient proof of particular disadvantage.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Bourne J, in [2025] EWHC 2396 (Admin) , dismissed the judicial review claims concerning refusal of admission and the adjudicator’s determination. He found the criterion justified and the public sector equality duty discharged.
• Office of the Schools Adjudicator: On 18 November 2024, dismissed CKT’s objection to the 2025–2026 admission arrangements.
• Admissions appeal panel: Dismissed the appeal against refusal of a place for CKT’s son for 2024–2025.