Formal Education in UK Law

In short, the decision maker must be clear precisely what the equality implications are when he puts them in the balance, and he must recognise the desirability of achieving them, but ultimately it is for him to decide what weight they should be given in the light of all relevant factors. If Ms Mountfield's submissions on this point were correct, it would allow unelected judges to review on substantive merits grounds almost all aspects of public decision making.

I am far from suggesting either that the concept of education or of physical education even for the young is capable of indefinite extension. On the contrary, I do not think that the courts have as yet explored the extent to which elements of organisation, instruction, or the disciplined inculcation of information instruction or skill may limit the whole concept of education. I believe that in some ways it will prove more extensive, in others more restrictive than has been thought hitherto.

There is no Convention guarantee of education at or by a particular institution. The test, as always under the Convention, is a highly pragmatic one, to be applied to the specific facts of the case: have the authorities of the state acted so as to deny to a pupil effective access to such educational facilities as the state provides for such pupils?

The correct interpretation of s85(4) is perhaps best indicated by saying that the appellant cannot succeed by showing that he would be granted leave if he made an application on the date of the hearing: he can succeed only by showing that he would be granted leave if he made, on the date of the hearing, the same application as that which resulted in the decision under appeal.

In Steel v. Union of Post Office Workers, the point under consideration involved the corresponding provisions, in the same terms, of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It seems to me that the Employment Appeal Tribunal in that case put something of a gloss on the word "justifiable" by suggesting that it was equivalent, or close to having the same meaning as "necessary".

The correct approach, which is the one, it seems to me, the inspector follows, is simply that it is for the applicant to establish very special circumstances that override Green Belt considerations. A need to be on or near a particular site may be one of such very special circumstance.

An application is made when paragraph 34G says it is made. The Secretary of State at the date of her decision assesses the evidence which determines whether the applicant for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study work) Migrant has accumulated 75 points. Whether that evidence was assessed by the Secretary of State, or even later, by a tribunal, these applicants could not score 75 points because they had made their applications before they had obtained their qualifications.