BJV & Anor v Responsible Body of the Nightingale Primary School

A tribunal’s reasons must be adequate, not perfect. It should explain decisive findings but need not recite every statutory step or item of evidence where matters are undisputed, self-evident or adequately resolved by its findings. Proportionality can be assessed by substance rather than headings. In reasonable-adjustment claims, the tribunal should identify the relevant practice or auxiliary aid and assess disadvantage and reasonable steps in context. Support may be tailored to changing needs and weighed against the development of independence. Concise reasons or disagreement with factual findings do not, by themselves, establish an error of law.

BJV and CKW brought claims under the Equality Act 2010 on behalf of their son, DLX, against the responsible body of his primary school. They alleged disability discrimination in the school’s use of a bell, its interview of DLX about bullying, his opportunity to play with a friend, and the support available during breaks. The First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber), in case EH317/23/00001, rejected the allegations in a decision dated 1 November 2023. The parents appealed, alleging errors in the tribunal’s legal analysis and reasons. The Upper Tribunal granted limited permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision did not involve an error of law under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

2. The standard for tribunal reasons is adequacy, not perfection. A tribunal should explain its decisive findings, but need not set out every step of a statutory test or refer to each item of evidence. It must consider the evidence as a whole and explain its findings; silence or brevity on a point does not by itself show that the point was overlooked. The First-tier Tribunal’s reasons on victimisation were adequate: the protected act was clear from the decision, and the decisive finding was that the school had not subjected DLX to a detriment because of his parents’ complaint. Its reasoning applied to all staff, despite any misidentification of the alleged perpetrator. The accepted witness evidence supported that conclusion. A challenge to factual findings may establish an error of law, but was difficult here given the absence of direct contrary evidence and the tribunal’s opportunity to assess witnesses with the benefit of specialist members.

3. On the school bell claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the Upper Tribunal considered the proportionality elements set out in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. The First-tier Tribunal had not used that formal structure, but its reasoning addressed the substance: coordination across a large site was important, the bell served that aim, no equally effective and less intrusive alternative was evidenced, and the school’s benefit outweighed the brief loss of teaching time. Its conclusion was within the range open to it.

4. For the first requirement in section 20(3), the bell’s use was the relevant practice. Where the complaint identifies a single clear practice, the tribunal need not undertake further analysis to identify it. The extent of analysis required on substantial disadvantage depends on the case; the tribunal was entitled to find that a loss of only a few minutes’ teaching a day was not substantial. For the interview claim, the tribunal could treat the arrangements for the interview as a practice and conclude that the familiar staff, quiet setting and adapted questioning meant DLX was not placed at a substantial disadvantage.

5. The tribunal also made no error in its findings about play with Child G. On the evidence it accepted, the school had not prevented the children from playing together. Its reasons adequately explained why it found no victimisation or unfavourable treatment.

6. The complaint about adult support during breaks concerned the third requirement in section 20(5). The tribunal’s focus on DLX’s changing needs and vulnerabilities, and on the balance between support and independence, reflected practical considerations relevant to what steps it was reasonable to take. Support need not be provided when it is not needed and may be focused on the times it is. The tribunal was not required to reason by reference to a fixed number of hours or a generic description of the aid.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): In BJV & Anor v Responsible Body of the Nightingale Primary School, [2026] UKUT 264 (AAC) , the appeal was dismissed; the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was held not to involve an error of law.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber): In case EH317/23/00001, decided on 1 November 2023, the tribunal rejected the claims. Its decision was left undisturbed.