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)
X Limited, R (on the application of) v Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills & Anor
13 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1803 (Admin)
High Court
A company got a bad rating from a school inspector and sued. The court said they could challenge the bad rating, but not the government's potential actions based on that rating yet, and couldn't stop the bad rating from being published. The court will speed up the case about the bad rating.
Key Facts
- •X Ltd challenged an 'inadequate' rating of its training provision by HMCI (dated 24 February 2023).
- •X Ltd brought public and private law claims against HMCI and the Secretary of State (acting through ESFA).
- •X Ltd sought permission to amend grounds, rely on additional witness statements, and for interim relief.
- •X Ltd's funding contract with ESFA allowed for detrimental action (including cessation of funding) following an inadequate Ofsted report.
- •The Secretary of State had not yet taken any action and stated that no decision would be made until Ofsted's final report was published.
Legal Principles
The test for granting permission to apply for judicial review is arguability – a relatively low hurdle.
Court judgment
In cases involving the restraint of publication by public bodies, there is a significant public interest in publication, particularly when a duty to publish exists. A high hurdle ('pressing grounds') must be met to grant an injunction.
Taveta Investments v Financial Reporting Council [2018] EWHC 1662; R (on the application of Barking and Dagenham College) v Office for Students [2019] EWHC 2667 (Admin); R (Governing Body of X) v Office for Standards in Schools [2020] EWCA Civ 594
A mandatory injunction to require ESFA to maintain a contract and provide funding requires a high degree of assurance that the claimant will succeed at trial.
Quest v SS for Education [2023] EWHC 3578 at [85]
The court considered the public interest in HMCI complying with its statutory duty to publish reports, the Article 10 ECHR rights of HMCI and the public, and the interests of employers and apprentices.
Court judgment
Outcomes
Permission to apply for judicial review granted against HMCI.
X Ltd established a properly arguable case against HMCI on all grounds.
Permission to apply for judicial review refused against the Secretary of State.
The claim was premature as ESFA had taken no decision and had not threatened to do so; the claim lacked arguability.
Interim relief refused against both defendants.
For the Secretary of State, the claim was premature and the balance of convenience did not support relief; for HMCI, X Ltd failed to meet the high hurdle for restraining publication of a statutorily required report.
Expedited hearing of the judicial review claim against HMCI was proposed.
To shorten the period before X Ltd could challenge Ofsted's report.
Similar Cases
Hexpress Healthcare Limited, R (on the application of) v The Care Quality Commission
[2023] EWCA Civ 238
HPSPC Limited & Anor, (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2022] EWHC 3159 (Admin)
James Haslam v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 314 (GRC)
London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)