M v Proprietor of An Academy

Before striking out a discrimination claim for having no reasonable prospect of success, a tribunal must take reasonable care to identify the claims disclosed by the claim form and key documents, particularly where the claimant is unrepresented. If a claim is sufficiently apparent but needs further particulars or formal amendment, the tribunal must clarify it and consider whether amendment is needed. Very low attendance does not, by itself, explain why adjustments could not be made for examinations the pupil sat. A strike-out cannot be upheld on a time-limit argument where the evidence does not establish when the failure occurred and the tribunal has not considered whether to extend time under the Equality Act 2010.

M, a young person represented by his parent, brought a disability-discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 against the proprietor of his academy. The First-tier Tribunal first struck out several claims as out of time, then struck out the remaining claims for having no reasonable prospect of success. Those remaining claims included an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments for GCSE examinations M sat in May and June 2024.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether the First-tier Tribunal had failed to identify and determine that examination-adjustments claim, give reasons for finding it hopeless, or consider whether amendment was needed. It also considered whether the claim could be dismissed as out of time.

1. The appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law insofar as it struck out the claim concerning reasonable adjustments for examinations without addressing that claim. The decision was set aside to that extent, and the claim was remitted to a fresh First-tier Tribunal.

2. The claim form alleged that M needed breaks and shorter tasks, including in examinations. The registration judge identified an examination-adjustments claim. M later referred to extra time for examinations, and the material before the First-tier Tribunal showed that he sat GCSE examinations in May and June 2024. By the case-management hearing, the claim was sufficiently clear to require determination, although further particulars and, formally, amendment were needed. The SEND jurisdiction does not generally require formal pleading standards. A tribunal must take reasonable care to identify a claim from a litigant in person’s documents; where a claim is close to being properly pleaded, the judge must clarify it and consider whether amendment is needed. The principles in Cox v Adecco and Ors [2023] EAT 105 and UW v Cheam Academies Network (SEN) [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC) supported that approach.

3. The First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning that M’s very low attendance made further educational provision redundant did not address adjustments for examinations he actually sat. The respondent had entered him for the examinations, and the evidence did not show that it had sought adjustments from the examination board. The circumstances differed from OA v The Responsible Body for School F, where the school had applied for and obtained extra time. The First-tier Tribunal gave no adequate reason for finding the examination-adjustments claim hopeless.

4. The respondent’s time-limit argument could not provide a clear knock-out. Under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 27 to the Equality Act 2010, the primary time limit is six months from the conduct complained of, but the First-tier Tribunal may extend time. For a failure to do something, paragraph 4(5)(c) treats the failure as occurring when the person decides not to act. In the absence of evidence of that decision, paragraph 4(6) deems the decision to occur when the person acts inconsistently with doing the act, or, if that does not occur, when the reasonable period for doing it expires. The respondent had not pleaded a decision date, and the limited evidence did not permit a safe finding on time or any extension. Those issues were left for the First-tier Tribunal on remission.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside only insofar as it concerned the claim for reasonable adjustments in examinations, and that claim was remitted to a fresh Tribunal.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) (Special Educational Needs and Disability): On 7 May 2025, Judge Lom refused to revisit the earlier out-of-time strike-outs and struck out the remaining claims for having no reasonable prospect of success.