Tza, R (On the Application Of) v A Secondary School (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 200 (04 March 2025)

Tza, R (On the Application Of) v A Secondary School (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 200 (04 March 2025)

The Court held that there is no legal requirement for contemporaneous documentary evidence of compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty; what matters is that due regard was in fact paid before the exclusion decision. The Governing Body was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the Headteacher had complied with the PSED. The reconsideration decision was adequately reasoned and addressed the relevant statutory and guidance requirements. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 200
Parties
Claimant/appellant: THE KING (on the application of TZA); Defendant/respondent: A SECONDARY SCHOOL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of School Exclusion, Public Sector Equality Duty, Permanent Exclusion of Pupils, Special Educational Needs, Race Discrimination, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Education Law Equality Law Judicial Review of School Exclusion Public Sector Equality Duty Permanent Exclusion of Pupils Special Educational Needs Race Discrimination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE KING (on the application of TZA)

Claimant/appellant

A SECONDARY SCHOOL

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Headteacher and Governing Body complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 Equality Act 2010 when permanently excluding a pupil with protected characteristics.
  2. 2 Whether the reconsideration decision by the Governing Body was inadequately reasoned for failing to address concerns raised by the Independent Review Panel.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there is no legal requirement for contemporaneous documentary evidence of compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty; what matters is that due regard was in fact paid before the exclusion decision. The Governing Body was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the Headteacher had complied with the PSED. The reconsideration decision was adequately reasoned and addressed the relevant statutory and guidance requirements. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed