A Multi Academy Trust v RR

A Multi Academy Trust v RR

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly define the comparator group 'disabled pupils generally', by not establishing an evidential base for the impact of the PCP on that group, and by not clarifying the comparator with non-disabled persons. The statutory language and legislative history require that the comparator is not limited to non-disabled pupils at the same school, and a hypothetical comparator is permissible. The decision is set aside and remitted for reconsideration with proper application of these principles.

Parties
Appellant: A Multi Academy Trust; Respondent: RR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (health, Education and Social Care Chamber) / Upper Tribunal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside in part and remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Disability Discrimination in Schools, Equality Act 2010, Special Educational Needs, Comparators in Discrimination Claims
Equality and Discrimination Law Education Law Reasonable Adjustments Disability Discrimination in Schools Equality Act 2010 Special Educational Needs Comparators in Discrimination Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Multi Academy Trust

Appellant

RR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (health, Education and Social Care Chamber) / Upper Tribunal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct comparator group for reasonable adjustments claims under s.20(3) Equality Act 2010 as modified for schools?
  2. 2 Did the First-tier Tribunal err in law in its application of the comparator and evidential requirements for 'disabled pupils generally'?
  3. 3 Is a hypothetical comparator permissible in special school contexts with few or no non-disabled pupils?

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly define the comparator group 'disabled pupils generally', by not establishing an evidential base for the impact of the PCP on that group, and by not clarifying the comparator with non-disabled persons. The statutory language and legislative history require that the comparator is not limited to non-disabled pupils at the same school, and a hypothetical comparator is permissible. The decision is set aside and remitted for reconsideration with proper application of these principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside in part and remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The part of the First-tier Tribunal decision relating to the finding against the Responsible Body is set aside.
  • That part of the case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the Upper Tribunal's decision.