G v St Gregory's Catholic Science College (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin) (17 June 2011)

G v St Gregory's Catholic Science College (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin) (17 June 2011)

The school's policy prohibiting cornrows for boys amounted to indirect race discrimination as it placed boys of African-Caribbean ethnicity who, for genuine cultural and family reasons, wore cornrows at a particular disadvantage. The policy was not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the school's legitimate aims, as exceptions could be made for genuine cases without undermining the policy. The policy was therefore unlawful to the extent of the prohibition on cornrows for boys with a genuine cultural or ethnic need.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1452 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: G (by his litigation friend); Defendants: The Head Teacher & Governors of St Gregory's Catholic Science College
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declaration of unlawfulness
Legal Topics
School Uniform Policy, Indirect Race Discrimination, Indirect Sex Discrimination, Equality Act 2010, Race Relations Act 1976, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Legitimate Expectation, Public Sector Equality Duty
Education Law Equality and Discrimination Law Administrative Law School Uniform Policy Indirect Race Discrimination Indirect Sex Discrimination Equality Act 2010 Race Relations Act 1976 +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G (by his litigation friend)

Claimant

The Head Teacher & Governors of St Gregory's Catholic Science College

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the school's prohibition on cornrow hairstyles for boys constitutes unlawful indirect race discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 and Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the policy constitutes unlawful indirect sex discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and thus justifiable

Ratio Decidendi

The school's policy prohibiting cornrows for boys amounted to indirect race discrimination as it placed boys of African-Caribbean ethnicity who, for genuine cultural and family reasons, wore cornrows at a particular disadvantage. The policy was not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the school's legitimate aims, as exceptions could be made for genuine cases without undermining the policy. The policy was therefore unlawful to the extent of the prohibition on cornrows for boys with a genuine cultural or ethnic need.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declaration of unlawfulness

Orders

  • Declaration that the school's policy prohibiting cornrows for boys is unlawful indirect race discrimination unless exceptions are made for genuine cultural or ethnic reasons.