RD and GD v The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (Responsible Body) (SEN)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Lane |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 278 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Disability discrimination in schools,Equality Act,Tribunal procedure,practice,practice - fair hearing,practice - other,practice - tribunal membership,procedure,practice - tribunal practice,Lane,S |
| Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Published date | 10 November 2020 |
RD and GD v The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (SEN) [2020] UKUT 278 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. HS/1170/2019
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
Appellants: RD and GD
Respondents: The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (‘Responsible Body’)
DIRECTIONS
I direct that there is to be no publication of any matter likely to lead members of the
public directly or indirectly to identify any person who has been involved in the
circumstances giving rise to this appeal, pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal
Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698).
DECISION
This decision of the First-tier Tribunal IS NOT SET ASIDE. Although the decision of
the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of errors of law, the Upper Tribunal
exercises its power NOT to remake the decision, under section 12(2)(a) of the
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The Appellants in this case are Mr and Mrs D, the parents of a child I will refer to
as X. Mr D, who is a layman, represented them in person. I shall refer to them
as the Appellants and to their son as X.
2. The Respondents are the responsible body of the Academy attended by X at the
relevant time. They were represented by Mr Russell Holland, of counsel,
instructed by Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP. The hearing took place at the Rolls
RD and GD v The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (SEN) [2020] UKUT 278 (AAC)
Building on 24 January 2020. Mr D and Mr Holland attended, as did Mr
Grainger, a solicitor from Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP. A Ms Harrison was also
present.
3. It should be mentioned at the outset that Mr Holland accepted the inquisitorial
role of the Upper Tribunal with grace, assisting me impartially with difficult
matters that would not be apparent to Mr D but which might assist his case.
4. The Appellants claimed that the Respondent Responsible Body of the Academy
(which I shall collectively call ‘the School’) had discriminated against X, on the
ground of his disability. There was no dispute that X was disabled within the
meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
5. The Appellants claimed under section 85(2), section 15 (discrimination arising as
a consequence of unfavourable treatment) and section 20 - 21 (discrimination
caused by failure to make reasonable adjustments). The grounds of appeal that
I admitted were these:
(i) The Tribunal limited the period of the asserted discriminatory behaviour
to the 6 month period from 1 February 2018 – down to the date X was
removed from School by the Appellants at the end of November 2018
for a holiday, without permission. The Tribunal thereby excluded the
claimed period of 17 July 2017 – 1 February 2018. Did it err in law,
having regard to its power to extend time for claiming under Schedule
17, paragraphs 4(3) and 4(5)(b). Would the result have been different
if the F-tT had included the earlier period?
1
(ii) Did the Tribunal err in law in failing to recognise that, for the purposes
of s. 15, a consequence could have more than one cause, and in failing
to identify a second operative cause of the asserted discrimination?
(iii) Did the Tribunal err in law in respect of the duty under s.21 by failing to
establish a basis sufficient in law for it under s. 20? The Appellants did
not raise this issue and it is potentially against their interest. The
Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction, however, to raise points under its
inquisitorial powers whether raised by the parties or not.
1
There is a slip in my directions on the period applicable to the Appellants’ claim. It should have read
that the relevant period ran from 2 February 2018, the claim having been made 6 months later. The
question for the Upper Tribunal was whether it was correct to exclude the previous period of 17 July
2017 – 1 February 2018.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
SS v Proprietor of an Independent School
...(see Hertfordshire County Council v MC and KC (SEN) [2016] UKUT 0385 (AAC), RD and GD v The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (SEN) [2020] UKUT 278 (AAC), RB v Calderdale MBC (SEN) [2022] UKUT 136 (AAC), GP v Lime Trust and EHRC [2023] UKUT 77 (AAC) and A Multi Academy Trust v RR UKUT 9 (AAC)).......