Proprietor of Ashdown House School v. (1) JKL (2) MNP
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge West |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Disability discrimination in schools,West,M |
| Date | 20 August 2019 |
| Published date | 30 September 2019 |
Proprietor of Ashdown House School v. (1) JKL (2) MNP [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC)
1
HS1322/2019
ORDER
Pursuant to rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is
prohibited for any person to disclose or publish any matter likely to lead members of
the public to identify the child in these proceedings. This order does not apply to (a) the
child’s parents (b) any person to whom the child’s parents, in due exercise of their
parental responsibility, disclose such a matter or who learns of it through publication
by either parent, where such publication is a due exercise of parental responsibility (c)
any person exercising statutory (including judicial) functions in relation to the child
where knowledge of the matter is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the
functions.
DETERMINATION
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (SENDIST) dated 22 May 2019 (after a hearing on 17
May 2019) under file reference EH845/19/00048 does not involve an error on a point of law.
The appeal against that decision is dismissed.
The orders of 20 June 2019 and 4 July 2019 suspending the effect of the decision of the First-
tier Tribunal cease to have any effect from the date of this decision.
This determination is made under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This case concerns the following main questions:
(1) whether the First-tier Tribunal (SENDIST) has power to order reinstatement of an
expelled pupil under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 17 of the Equality Act 2010 and the
Proprietor of Ashdown House School v. (1) JKL (2) MNP [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC)
2
HS1322/2019
relevance to that question of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mackenzie v. University
of Cambridge [2019] EWCA Civ 1060 (20 June 2019)
(2) the means by which decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (SENDIST) can be enforced, if not
by the Tribunal itself
(3) whether, in the light of the historic reluctance of the courts to order specific performance
of contracts involving personal service/contact or supervision, it is appropriate to order such
reinstatement
(4) the appropriateness of ordering an apology in SEND cases.
2. It deals with the expulsion from the School of a ten year old boy, who was a pupil at the
School, who has ADHD, sensory processing difficulties and emotional and social difficulties
arising from trauma in his early childhood and in the womb. He was permanently excluded
from the School on 9 February 2019.
3. Although the School is named in the decision, I have anonymised the identity of both
the pupil concerned and his parents lest he be identified either directly or through the names
of his parents. I have referred to the pupil throughout as “Bobby”, a name which he requested
should be used for the reasons which he will understand, but which need no additional
explanation by me. I refer to him as Bobby both where I refer to him myself in the body of
this decision and when I am quoting from original documents which used his actual name
(whether in the bundle which was before the Tribunal or from the decision of the Tribunal
itself, which I have altered accordingly). I have referred to his parents by the letters JKL and
MNP, again where I refer to them myself in the body of this decision and when I am quoting
from original documents which used their actual names (whether in the bundle which was
before the Tribunal or from the decision of the Tribunal itself, which again I have altered
accordingly).
4. The Appellant is the Cothill Trust as proprietor of Ashdown House School (“the
School”). The Respondents are JKL and MNP, as the parents of Bobby (“the parents”).
Proprietor of Ashdown House School v. (1) JKL (2) MNP [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC)
3
HS1322/2019
5. The School appeals, with my permission, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal
(Judge Clare Hockney, Mr Nick Aziz and Ms Lindsey Rousseau) (“the Tribunal”) which it
made after a hearing on 17 May 2019 at which both parties appeared and were represented.
The Tribunal produced its written decision on 22 May 2019. I shall refer in more detail to the
Tribunal’s decision and its reasons below. Permission to appeal was initially refused by
Tribunal Judge Brayne on 3 June 2019.
Timing and Structure of this Decision
6. The decision in this case is time-critical in the sense that the new school term begins on
4th September 2019 and the parties need to know sufficiently in advance of the beginning of
term what the result of the appeal is, so that they can make arrangements accordingly. I have
therefore produced this decision as swiftly as I can so that the parties have as much advance
notification of it before the commencement of the new school term to make their individual
arrangements as necessary.
7. The structure of this decision is as follows:
Introduction: paragraphs 1-5
Timing and Structure of the Decision: paragraphs 6-7
The Tribunal’s Decision and Reasons: paragraphs 8-9
The Tribunal’s Order: paragraphs 10-11
Case Management Directions: paragraph 12
Permission to Appeal: paragraphs 13-18
The Grounds of Appeal: paragraphs 19-20
The Statutory Framework and Jurisdiction: paragraphs 21-36
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Adrian John Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice
...and so was an “inferior court” for the purposes of s. 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981; and Proprietor of Ashdown House School v JKL [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC), where Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West held at [144] that the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability Chamber) was ......
-
SS v Proprietor of an Independent School
...the appellants argued should have been taken, contrary to the guidance given in Proprietor of Ashdown House School v (1) JKL, (2) MNP [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC). 17 Case no: UA-2023-000387-HS SS v Proprietor of an Independent School [2024] UKUT 29 (AAC) 61. Mr Friel for the RB in response relies......
-
Choi Lee Lee v Mok Pui Yuk
...provided in the SOC. [10] See §5 of SOC. [11] Supra, footnote 5, §10-040, at p. 371. [12] 2006 (6) SA 235 (CC), §§68-70. [13] [2019] UKUT 259 (AAC), [14] [2021] 2 HKLRD 1189, §§142-155; a case also cited by Ms Cho in her submissions. [15] The Malaysian Court of Appeal case of Credit Guarant......