Mr and Mrs X (parents) v The Proprietor of Woodcote High School, now ‘The Collegiate Trust’ (the Responsible Body)
[2024] UKUT 150 (AAC)
A Multi Academy Trust v RR
29 December 2023
[2024] UKUT 9 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A school was found to have discriminated against a disabled student. A higher court overturned that decision because the original court didn't properly compare the situation of the disabled student with non-disabled students, and didn't have enough evidence. The case will now be reconsidered by the original court.
Key Facts
- •A Multi Academy Trust (Appellant) appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FtT) decision finding them in breach of s.20(3) Equality Act 2010 for failing to provide a documented transition plan for a pupil (SR) with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
- •SR is a pupil at a special school with complex needs and an EHC plan.
- •The FtT found the lack of an individual transition plan placed disabled pupils generally at a substantial disadvantage.
- •The appeal concerned the application of the 'disabled pupils generally' test in s.20(3) Equality Act 2010, as modified by Schedule 13.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing proceeded in the Respondent's (SR's father) absence with his consent, relying on his written submissions.
- •The UT considered issues of anonymisation due to SR's vulnerability and ordered anonymity under rule 14.
Legal Principles
The 'disabled pupils generally' test in s.20(3) Equality Act 2010 (modified by Schedule 13) requires considering the impact of a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) on a group of pupils, not just an individual.
C and C v Governing Body of a School [2018] UKUT 61 (AAC); R (Rowley) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2021] EWHC 2108 (Admin)
The comparator group for assessing substantial disadvantage is 'persons who are not disabled', not necessarily pupils within the same school, especially in special schools with few non-disabled pupils.
R (Rowley) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2021] EWHC 2108 (Admin); SSWP v MM and DM [2013] EWCA Civ 1565; Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112
A PCP must be capable of being applied to a comparator, but the comparator does not need to be within the same institution.
Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112
Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 places the burden of proof on the respondent to show they did not contravene the Act if there are facts suggesting a contravention.
Equality Act 2010, s.136
The Equality Act 2010 aims to remove barriers affecting disabled people compared to able-bodied people.
SSWP v MM and DM [2013] EWCA Civ 1565
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.
The FtT erred in law by inadequately defining 'disabled pupils generally', failing to provide sufficient evidence of the impact of the PCP on this group and non-disabled persons, and making an unclear comparison with non-disabled pupils.
The FtT's decision was set aside only in relation to the finding against the Responsible Body.
The case was remitted to the FtT for reconsideration, addressing the identified shortcomings in the original decision.