Key Facts
- •School T refused on-site education for student A (14, autistic) due to challenging behaviour and staff shortages exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •Parents (Respondents) claimed discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found in favour of the parents, ruling the school's decision was disproportionate.
- •School (Appellant) appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing the FTT erred on time limits and proportionality.
- •A was subsequently placed in a distant care home, further complicating the case.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'continuing act' versus 'act with continuing consequences' in discrimination claims.
Various case laws cited (e.g., Virdi, Barclays Bank, Hendricks, Amies, Parr, Sougrin, Chaudhary, Calder, Tait, Cast, Owusu)
Time limits for bringing discrimination claims under Schedule 17 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, Schedule 17, paragraph 4
Objective justification under section 15(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 requires proportionality assessment.
Equality Act 2010, section 15(1)(b); Homer, Akerman-Livingstone
Outcomes
Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FTT erred in its determination of the time limit and in its proportionality assessment.
FTT decision set aside and remitted.
The UT found errors of law in the FTT's handling of the time limit issue (continuing act vs. one-off act with continuing consequences) and its analysis of proportionality (failure to consider staff and pupil safety adequately).