Thomas Telford School v Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Schools
[2024] EWHC 880 (Admin)
All Saints Academy, Dunstable, R (on the application of) v The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) & Anor
18 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1792 (Admin)
High Court
A school sued Ofsted after a bad inspection. The judge said Ofsted gave enough information to the school to understand the problems and what to do to fix them, even though there were two inspections with different results. The report was short, but the judge thought that was okay because it needed to be easy for parents to understand, not just school leaders.
Key Facts
- •All Saints Academy (the School) challenged an Ofsted inspection resulting in an 'Inadequate' overall grade.
- •Two inspections were conducted: the first provisionally graded the School 'Requires Improvement', the second 'Inadequate'.
- •The School's judicial review focused on two grounds: insufficient reasons to contest findings (Ground 1) and insufficient reasons in the final report (Ground 2).
- •The court considered oral feedback from inspection meetings, alongside written reports, when assessing the adequacy of reasons.
- •The court rejected the School's arguments that the report was too brief and lacked evidence base details, emphasizing the practical limitations on Ofsted and the need for a concise report for various audiences.
Legal Principles
Statutory powers must be exercised fairly, considering context and the statute.
R v SSHD ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Fairness requires opportunity to correct criticisms, but not 'chapter and verse'.
In re Pergamon Press [1972] Ch 388
Adequate reasons must be intelligible, enabling understanding of conclusions and avoiding doubt.
Various cases cited in paragraph 137
Reasons challenges require considering the context and the audience (schools vs. parents).
South Bucks DC v Porter [2004] UKHL 33
Ofsted's primary responsibility is inspection and reporting, though it aims to improve schools.
Court's interpretation of Ofsted's statutory duties
Outcomes
Ground 1 (insufficient reasons to contest draft report findings) failed.
The School received sufficient information, including oral feedback, to respond effectively to the draft report. The court rejected the argument that the report needed to supply the entire evidence base.
Ground 2 (insufficient reasons in the final report) failed.
The Final Report provided sufficient reasons, explanation, and guidance for its findings, considering its intended audience (parents, public) and Ofsted's resource constraints. The court deemed the report clear enough to understand the conclusions and how to improve.
Similar Cases
London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)
X Limited, R (on the application of) v Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1803 (Admin)
HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2022] EWHC 3159 (Admin)
London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWCA Civ 951