UW v Cheam Academies Network

UW v Cheam Academies Network

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the behaviour policy, as the duty applies to behaviour policies and sanctions under the Equality Act 2010. However, the error was not material to the decision appealed because the relevant claim had already been finally disposed of by a previous judge and was not properly appealed. Procedural errors regarding party identification and representation did not materially affect fairness or outcome.

Parties
Appellant: UW; Respondent: Cheam Academies Network
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; error of law identified but not material to decision; First-tier Tribunal decision not set aside.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, School Exclusion, Tribunal Procedure
Education Law Equality and Anti Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments School Exclusion Tribunal Procedure

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UW

Appellant

Cheam Academies Network

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the school’s behaviour policy
  2. 2 Whether the identification of the incorrect responsible body and respondent constituted a material legal error
  3. 3 Whether procedural errors in 'not admitting' claims and failure to notify appeal rights affected fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the behaviour policy, as the duty applies to behaviour policies and sanctions under the Equality Act 2010. However, the error was not material to the decision appealed because the relevant claim had already been finally disposed of by a previous judge and was not properly appealed. Procedural errors regarding party identification and representation did not materially affect fairness or outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; error of law identified but not material to decision; First-tier Tribunal decision not set aside.

Orders

  • No part of the Holmes Tribunal’s decision is set aside except as previously ordered by Judge Bradley.
  • Appellant may make a late application to appeal Judge O’Neill’s order regarding reasonable adjustments claim.