London Oratory School, R (on the application of) v The School Adjudicator & Anor [2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin) (17 April 2015)

London Oratory School, R (on the application of) v The School Adjudicator & Anor [2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin) (17 April 2015)

The Adjudicator erred in law by applying too high a threshold ('compelling reason') for departure from Diocesan Guidance, rather than the correct test of 'clear and proper reason.' The Adjudicator's findings on social selectivity, discrimination, and procedural unfairness were flawed. The School's requests for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Governing Body of the London Oratory School; Defendant: The Schools Adjudicator; Interested Party: The British Humanist Association; Interested Party: The Secretary of State for Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
School Admissions, Faith Based Oversubscription Criteria, Statutory Guidance, Judicial Review, Discrimination, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Education Law Human Rights School Admissions Faith Based Oversubscription Criteria Statutory Guidance Judicial Review Discrimination +1 more

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Governing Body of the London Oratory School

Claimant

The Schools Adjudicator

Defendant

The British Humanist Association

Interested Party

The Secretary of State for Education

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Schools Adjudicator applied the correct legal test in assessing the School's compliance with statutory guidance on admissions criteria
  2. 2 Whether the School's admissions arrangements were discriminatory or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the School lawfully departed from Diocesan Guidance under the Admissions Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator erred in law by applying too high a threshold ('compelling reason') for departure from Diocesan Guidance, rather than the correct test of 'clear and proper reason.' The Adjudicator's findings on social selectivity, discrimination, and procedural unfairness were flawed. The School's requests for baptismal certificates and evidence of previous Catholic education were permissible, subject to proper reasons for departing from Diocesan Guidance. In other respects, the Adjudicator's conclusions were lawful or not susceptible to challenge.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Adjudicator's determination quashed in part
  • Matter remitted for further determination applying the correct legal test