GP v Lime Trust and EHRC
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Wright |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKUT 77 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Wright,S |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 04 April 2023 |
GP v The Lime Trust and EHRC
[2023] UKUT 77 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL UT ref: UA-2021-000607-HS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber)
Between: GP Appellant
- v –
The Lime Trust Respondent
and
The Equality and Human Rights Commission Intervener
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright
Decision date: 22 March 2023
Decided after an oral hearing on 17 November 2022
Representation:
Appellant: Ollie Persey of counsel
Respondent: David Lawson of counsel
Intervener: Amanda Weston KC of counsel
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the
First-tier Tribunal made on 6 September 2021 under case number EH908/20/00002
was not made in error of law.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal
dated 3 August 2021 (“the tribunal”) dismissing the appellant’s discrimination claim
against the respondent. The appellant’s claim was made against the respondent as
proprietor of the school her disabled son was then attending. The claim was, first, that
the respondent, through its school, had unlawfully discriminated against the appellant’s
GP v The Lime Trust and EHRC [2023] UKUT 77 (AAC)
Case no: UA-2021-000606-HS
2
son by not providing him with education, or had otherwise discriminated against him in
the way he was afforded access to education or a benefit, facility or service, contrary to
sections 15 and 85(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Equality Act”). The second aspect
of the claim alleged that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for
disability as required by sections 20, 21 and 85(6) of the Equality Act.
Relevant background
2. For the purposes of this appeal I need say no more than that the appellant’s son
has severe and complex special educational needs. It was common ground before the
tribunal that the appellant’s son could display challenging behaviour as a result of these
needs, including being physically assertive with staff and other pupils.
3. The background to the disability discrimination claim concerns, in broad terms, the
provision of education by the school to the appellant’s son during the first ‘lockdown’
brought on by the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020.
4. The appellant’s son was a pupil at the relevant school between September 2019
and July 2020. At or after a meeting the school had called to review the appellant’s
son’s Education, Health and Care Plan in March 2020, the school declared it could no
longer meet the child’s needs. As a result, the local education authority decided that it
would only continue to name the school in the child’s Education, Health and Care Plan
until the end of the summer term in 2020. At the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in
March 2020, the school was closed. After 20 March 2020 some remote learning
arrangements were put in place. The extent to which the appellant’s son was provided
with these arrangements was disputed. The school opened on a limited basis to a very
small number of pupils from 8 June 2020. By the end of the summer term only 19 of the
school’s 129 pupils were attending the school, and these 19 were only attending on a
part time basis. The appellant’s son was not amongst those 19 pupils, although the
appellant had expressed a preference that he be able to return.
5. The disability discrimination claim in its final form before the tribunal had three
parts.
6. First, whether the respondent had met its duty to make reasonable adjustments to
its remote learning arrangements so that the appellant’s son was not placed at a
substantial disadvantage compared with pupils generally by being unable to access
online resources or by paper resources not being sent to him between 1 June and 21
July 2020.
7. Second, whether the respondent had met its duty to make reasonable
adjustments to its COVID-19 arrangements so that the appellant’s son was not placed
at a substantial disadvantage compared with other pupils in being denied the
opportunity to attend school between 1 June and 21 July 2020.
8. Third, whether the appellant’s son was treated unfavourably by something arising
in consequence of his disability when he was denied the opportunity to attend school
between 1 June and 21 July 2020, and whether such unfavourable treatment was
justified.
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
9. The claim was heard over two days in June and July 2021. It was dismissed by
the tribunal on 3 August 2021. The tribunal’s findings and reasons for dismissing each
aspect of the claim extended to nearly fifty paragraphs. Towards the end of those
paragraphs, and having giving its reasons for deciding that the disability discrimination
To continue reading
Request your trial