HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2022] EWHC 3159 (Admin)
Robert Sharp, R (on the application of) v The Office of the Schools Adjudicator
25 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1242 (Admin)
High Court
Some parents were told their kids would get priority at a good school if they went to a specific primary school. This wasn't a legal promise, but a judge agreed it was unfair to those parents and ordered the school to change its rules to be fairer. Another parent sued saying the solution was unfair to *other* families, but a higher court disagreed, saying the overall result was fair.
Key Facts
- •Parents of children attending Langley Park Primary School (LPPS) were given assurances of preferential admission to Langley Park secondary schools.
- •These assurances were made before LPPS and the secondary schools were under the same multi-academy trust.
- •The trust later decided against preferential admission for LPPS students, leading to objections.
- •An adjudicator ruled that the admission arrangements were unfair to the LPPS students who had relied on the assurances.
- •The adjudicator's decision involved designating LPPS as a feeder school and increasing the published admission number (PAN) for the secondary schools.
- •Robert Sharp, a parent, challenged the adjudicator's decision via judicial review.
Legal Principles
School admission arrangements must be fair, clear, and objective.
Schools Admissions Code 2021, paragraph 14
Oversubscription criteria must be reasonable, clear, objective, procedurally fair, and compliant with all relevant legislation.
Schools Admissions Code 2021, paragraph 1.8
An adjudicator's decision is reviewable on conventional public law grounds, but the court will not substitute its own judgment on matters of assessment, evaluation, and balance.
R (Metropolitan Borough of the Wirral v The Chief Schools Adjudicator [2000] EWHC 635 (Admin)
Unenforceable promises cannot create legal rights, but the fairness of admission arrangements can consider the impact of such promises on applicants’ expectations.
Case law and reasoning of the court
Outcomes
The judicial review application was dismissed.
The adjudicator's decision was permissible in law. While unenforceable promises don't create legal rights, the adjudicator could consider their impact on fairness. The adjudicator properly considered the impact on all affected parties and a viable alternative.
Similar Cases
GH, R (on the application of) v The Mayor of London
[2024] EWHC 1305 (Admin)
TZA, R (on the application of) v A Secondary School
[2023] EWHC 1722 (Admin)
Child A and B, Re
[2024] EWFC 284 (B)
London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)