All Saints Academy Dunstable, R (On the Application Of) v Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) & Anor (Re Claim for Judicial Review) [2023] EWHC 1834 (Admin) (22 June 2023)

All Saints Academy Dunstable, R (On the Application Of) v Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) & Anor (Re Claim for Judicial Review) [2023] EWHC 1834 (Admin) (22 June 2023)

Permission to proceed with the judicial review is refused on all grounds except for the limited grounds that the school may argue it was not provided with sufficient information to fairly contest the inspectors' findings and that the reasons given in the final report were inadequate. All other grounds are unarguable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1834 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: All Saints Academy Dunstable; First Defendant: The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted); Second Defendant: His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education Children's Services and Skills
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing and Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Permission granted in part; refused in part
Legal Topics
Ofsted Inspections, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Duties of Regulators, School Inspection Reports, Reasons for Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Education Law Judicial Review Ofsted Inspections Procedural Fairness Statutory Duties of Regulators School Inspection Reports Reasons for Administrative Decisions

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All Saints Academy Dunstable

Claimant

The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)

First Defendant

His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education Children's Services and Skills

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing and Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ofsted inspection and reporting process was procedurally fair to the claimant school
  2. 2 Whether the single-word grading system in the Education Inspection Framework is unlawful or irrational
  3. 3 Whether Ofsted fettered its discretion in relation to safeguarding judgments

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to proceed with the judicial review is refused on all grounds except for the limited grounds that the school may argue it was not provided with sufficient information to fairly contest the inspectors' findings and that the reasons given in the final report were inadequate. All other grounds are unarguable or do not arise on the facts. The Ofsted inspection and complaints process is, in principle, fair and lawful, and the grading system is not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part; refused in part

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with judicial review is granted only on the grounds relating to sufficiency of information and adequacy of reasons; refused on all other grounds.
  • Interim relief restraining publication of the report pending this hearing is discharged.