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

12 July 2024

[2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)

High Court

A school got a bad rating and the government made it an academy. The local council didn't want that, saying the school would fail. A judge reviewed the decision and said the government had good reasons to think the school could still succeed as an academy, even though it was difficult to be sure. The council's legal challenge failed.

Key Facts

•Pooles Park Primary School ('the School') was rated 'Inadequate' by Ofsted, triggering a mandatory Academy Order under the Academies Act 2010.
•Islington Council ('the Council') sought revocation of the Academy Order, arguing the School was unviable due to falling pupil numbers, surplus places, and projected financial deficits.
•The Secretary of State for Education ('SSE') refused revocation, concluding the School was viable as an academy based on a ministerial submission.
•Two academy trusts expressed interest in sponsoring the School, proposing a shared resource model with another school.
•The Council challenged the SSE's decision through judicial review, alleging irrationality, inadequate inquiry, frustration of statutory duties, and fettering of discretion.

Legal Principles

Irrationality in judicial review

R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2019] 1 WLR 1649; R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778

The Tameside duty to make adequate inquiry

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

A minister cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2018] AC 61

Unlawful fettering of discretion

Various case law implied

Local authority duties regarding education provision

Education Act 1996, sections 13, 13A, 14

Secretary of State's powers under Academies Act 2010

Academies Act 2010, sections 4(A1), 5D

Secretary of State's policy on revoking Academy Orders

Schools Causing Concern Guidance

Outcomes

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

The court found the SSE's decision was not irrational, the Tameside duty was met, statutory duties were not frustrated, and discretion was not unlawfully fettered. The court gave deference to the SSE's assessment of viability, informed by expert opinion from the academy trust.

Similar Cases

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)