FORD v BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SMITH PRIMARY SCHOOL [2021] NZCA 321
The Court held the revocation of the appellant's place was unlawful; the offer letter remained valid and, under ss 33 and 74(2)(a) of the Education and Training Act 2020, the appellant was entitled to enrol at the school on the specified date (or a later agreed date); the application to adduce further evidence was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZCA 321
- Parties
- Appellant: Ford; Respondent: Board of Trustees for Smith Primary School; Intervener: Secretary for Education
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 July 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to Court of Appeal / Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Application to adduce further evidence declined; appeal allowed; declarations made that revocation was unlawful and the offer remains valid; enrolment ordered; costs awarded to appellant.
- Legal Topics
- School Enrolment, Revocation of Place, Declaratory Relief, Evidence Adduction, Confidentiality Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ford
Appellant
Board of Trustees for Smith Primary School
Respondent
Secretary for Education
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Court of Appeal / Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the school's purported revocation of the pupil's place was lawful
- 2 Whether the offer letter remained valid and gave an entitlement to enrol under ss 33 and 74(2)(a) of the Education and Training Act 2020
- 3 Whether the appellant should be permitted to adduce further evidence at appellate stage
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the revocation of the appellant's place was unlawful; the offer letter remained valid and, under ss 33 and 74(2)(a) of the Education and Training Act 2020, the appellant was entitled to enrol at the school on the specified date (or a later agreed date); the application to adduce further evidence was declined.
Court Disposition
Application to adduce further evidence declined; appeal allowed; declarations made that revocation was unlawful and the offer remains valid; enrolment ordered; costs awarded to appellant.
Orders
- The appellant's application to adduce further evidence is declined.
- The appeal is allowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FORD v BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SMITH PRIMARY SCHOOL [2021] NZCA 321 [15 July 2021]NOTE: ORDERS MADE IN THE HIGH COURT REMAIN IN FORCE:[2021] NZHC 1608. THE IDENTITY OF THE PARENTS, THE CHILD ANDTHE SCHOOL IS PERMANENTLY SUPPRESSED.CONFIDENTIALITY ORDERS APPLY TO THE EVIDENCE FILED. THEFILE IS NOT TO BE SEARCHED WITHOUT LEAVE OF A JUDGE OF THISCOURT.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA399/2021[2021] NZCA 321BETWEEN FORDAppellantAND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SMITHPRIMARY SCHOOLRespondentHearing: 8 July 2021Court: Brown, Clifford and Goddard JJCounsel: A S Butler and S W H Fletcher for AppellantP A Robertson and C T Child for RespondentS P Connolly and A M Piaggi for Secretary for Education asIntervenerJudgment: 15 July 2021 at 3.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The appellant's application to adduce further evidence is declined.B The appeal is allowed.C The following declarations are made:(i) The purported revocation of the appellant's place at Smith PrimarySchool was unlawful.(ii) The offer letter remains valid and the appellant is entitled to enrol atSmith Primary School in accordance with ss 33 and 74(2)(a) of theEducation and Training Act 2020 on Monday 26 July 2021 or on suchlater date as may be agreed by the appellant's parents and SmithPrimary School.D The respondent must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal ona band A basis with usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.E Direction under r 5(2) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents)Rules 2017 that documents or files of any kind related to the appeal may notbe accessed, except by the parties, without permission of this Court.____________________________________________________________________[Reasons to follow]Solicitors:Woods Fletcher, Wellington for AppellantHeaney & Partners, Auckland for RespondentCrown Law Office, Wellington for Intervener