Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

Public law and Regulation

Case reports and guidance on public law and professional regulation issues

20 JUL 2012

R (Lambeth LBC) v Lambeth Independent Appeals Panel [2012] EWHC 943 (Admin)

Education - school admissions - primary schools - appeals - duty to provide reasons - undue delay - withholding relief

A decision by an appeals panel allowing an appeal against the local authority's decision not to admit a child to a primary school was unlawful where the professed ground for the panel's decision was untenable.

23 March 2012

Administrative Court

John Howell QC

(1) Lambeth London Borough Council (L) sought to challenge by way of judicial review a decision of the Lambeth Independent Appeals Panel to allow the appeal against L's decision to not admit a child into a local primary school. The child's mother (M) was not able to walk long distances. She therefore applied for her child to join a local primary school (A) that was close to her home. However, it transpired that A was moving premises to location beyond M's walking range. M submitted an application to another school (B). However, the application was made late and made no reference to M's medical condition. L's admissions criteria were that higher priority could be given to children for social or medical reasons - priority was then given to children based on the distance between their home and the school. M fell outside the distance criterion B. Furthermore; L's policy regarding late applications was to consider them after applications that were made in time. As a result, B had become full. Accordingly, M's child was offered a place at A - M refused the place. M appealed the decision. The panel concluded that if the admissions arrangements has operated properly, M's child would have been offered a place at B. L challenged this decision on the basis that it did not contain adequate reasons for its decision and so was contrary to the requirements in paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Education (Admission Appeal Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002. B argued that relief should be refused because of undue delay on the part of L.

To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).

To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu.



Education Law Journal

Education Law Journal

Keeping you up to date with the latest developments in education law.

Available in Education Law Online
Licensing Law Reports

Licensing Law Reports

Full text reports of cases on all aspects of licensing law and practice.

More Info from £155.00
Available in Public Law and Regulation Online
Subscribe to our newsletters