London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)
HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
9 December 2022
[2022] EWHC 3159 (Admin)
High Court
A school was failing, and the government wanted to move it to a better-run group of schools. Some parents complained the government didn't ask them enough questions before deciding. The judge said that even if they had asked more questions, the decision would have been the same because the school had serious problems that needed fixing quickly.
Key Facts
- •Holland Park School (HPS), an academy, faced governance and leadership issues, leading to whistleblowing reports and an Ofsted 'inadequate' rating.
- •The school's governing body proposed a voluntary transfer to United Learning Trust (ULT), a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT).
- •Claimants (HPSPC and NEU) challenged the process, arguing insufficient consultation and unfairness.
- •The Secretary of State for Education (Defendant) defended the process, highlighting the urgency of the situation and the thoroughness of their decision-making.
- •The court considered whether the consultation met legal requirements, whether the outcome would have differed with a fair consultation, and whether to grant relief.
Legal Principles
Duty to consult arises in specific circumstances: statutory duty, promise, established practice, or conspicuous unfairness.
R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015]
If consultation is undertaken, it must be conducted fairly, including providing sufficient reasons, adequate time, and considering responses.
R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001]
Fairness in consultation is fact-specific and depends on context and circumstances; minor imperfections don't necessarily invalidate the process.
R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014]
Consultation is unlawful if 'so unfair as to be unlawful'.
R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018]
The court must refuse relief if it's 'highly likely' the outcome wouldn't have been substantially different without the complained-of conduct.
Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A)
Outcomes
Permission to seek judicial review granted, but claim dismissed on its merits.
The consultation, while not perfect, met minimum legal requirements. It was highly likely the same decision would have been reached even with a fairer consultation due to the extensive evidence supporting the transfer and the claimants' ample opportunity to voice concerns. The court also considered the need for urgent action and potential harm from delay.
Relief denied under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A).
The court found it highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different even if the consultation had been fairer, considering the compelling evidence supporting the transfer to ULT and the ample opportunities for stakeholders to express their views.
Similar Cases
THE KING (ON THE APPLICATION OF SWALCLIFFE PARK SCHOOL) v WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
[2023] EWHC 1451 (Admin)
London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWCA Civ 951
All Saints Academy, Dunstable, R (on the application of) v The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1792 (Admin)
Robert Sharp, R (on the application of) v The Office of the Schools Adjudicator
[2023] EWHC 1242 (Admin)