NBT, R (on the application of) v Bepart Educational Trust

An educational body outside the statutory exclusions regime must act fairly and in accordance with natural justice. A decision-maker must investigate sufficiently, give the affected student a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and act within the powers conferred by its disciplinary policy. A fresh, fair, de novo appeal which considers the full merits can cure procedural defects in an earlier decision, unless the defect has tainted the appeal or is so grave that a fair result cannot be achieved. The court will intervene for irrationality only where the decision falls outside the high threshold of unreasonableness. The body may assess the seriousness of conduct in its historical context and decide whether permanent exclusion is proportionate.

The claimant, a 17-year-old student with additional educational needs, sought judicial review of his permanent exclusion from a sixth-form college operated by the defendant. The exclusion followed an earlier appeal in which the Principal allowed him to return subject to conditions, and a subsequent decision reinstating exclusion when concerns continued.

The claimant alleged procedural unfairness, breach of natural justice, ultra vires exercise of power, irrationality and disproportionality. After proceedings began, the College offered an appeal to its Governors. The Governors conducted a de novo hearing covering the claimant’s full history and declined to reinstate him. The central issues were whether the Principal’s decision was unlawful and, if so, whether the Governors’ appeal cured those defects.

1. Principal’s decision. Under the Student Disciplinary Policy, the Principal’s appeal options were to reverse or uphold the permanent exclusion. The policy did not authorise suspension of exclusion subject to conditions, or a later unilateral reinstatement without a further fair process. Because the claimant returned to college, the December appeal decision was properly construed as reversing the exclusion. The conditions attached to his return were ultra vires and contrary to natural justice because they were vague and did not provide a meaningful opportunity to make representations.
2. The decision of 27 January 2026 was a fresh exclusion decision. It was made without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond and without properly investigating his response. It was therefore procedurally unfair.
3. Irrationality and proportionality. The threshold for intervention was high. The Principal was entitled to consider the January incidents alongside the earlier history of persistent breaches and to regard them as evidence that the problems leading to the earlier near-exclusion had not changed. Permanent exclusion was a proportionate decision open to the College.
4. Governors’ appeal. The Governors were entitled to conduct a de novo, full merits hearing covering the whole history rather than confining themselves to the January decision. They engaged adequately with the claimant’s representations and were entitled to attach different weight to the evidence. The appeal was fair and remedied the defects in the Principal’s decision.
5. The claim was dismissed. No standalone declaration of unlawfulness was made because the unfairness had been cured at the appeal stage.