London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Education

7 August 2024

[2024] EWCA Civ 951

Court of Appeal

Islington Council wanted to stop a failing primary school from becoming an academy, arguing it was unviable. The government disagreed, saying they found a good sponsor. The court sided with the government, finding their decision was reasonable and based on enough information. The school will become an academy.

Key Facts

•Islington Council challenged the Secretary of State for Education's (SSE) decision not to revoke an Academy Order for Pooles Park Primary School.
•The school was rated 'Inadequate' and placed in special measures, leading to the mandatory Academy Order.
•The Council argued the school was financially unviable as an Academy, citing flawed projections and insufficient consideration of relevant material.
•The SSE argued a suitable sponsor had been found, offering a viable plan despite declining pupil numbers.
•The key dispute centered on whether the SSE's decision was irrational and whether the Tameside duty (to make adequate inquiries) was breached.

Legal Principles

Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): A decision is irrational if no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

Failure to consider legally relevant material: A decision-maker must consider all legally relevant material before making a decision.

R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2019] 1 WLR 1649

Tameside duty: Decision-makers must take reasonable steps to acquaint themselves with relevant material.

Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014

Sufficiency of information: The decision-maker needs sufficient, not exhaustive, information to make an informed assessment.

R (National Association of Health Stores & Anr) v Department of Health [2005] EWCA Civ 154

Outcomes

Permission to appeal was refused.

Neither ground of appeal had a real prospect of success. The Judge correctly applied the legal tests, and the Minister had sufficient information to make a rational decision. The Council's arguments were based on misunderstandings of the evidence and the legal tests.

London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Education

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education

HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education

THE KING (ON THE APPLICATION OF SWALCLIFFE PARK SCHOOL) v WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

London Borough of Islington v A Parent

GH, R (on the application of) v The Mayor of London