Education law case update: January

A. Human Rights and Discrimination

R (CKS) and ors v SSE [2026] EWHC 741 (Admin)

Key issues: free school meals, religion, discrimination, PSED

It was lawful for the Secretary of State not to extend the Universal Infant Free School Meals policy to non state-funded schools. The issue arose in the context of Charedi children who attend Orthodox School as an essential facet of their belief and where there are no state-funded schools which are “religiously acceptable”; and further the Charedi community face a high level of deprivation and Charedi private schools are in a financially precarious position (§40).
Article 14 was not engaged because Charedi schools were treated like any other school which was not state-funded (§108-109). In any event any difference in treatment was justified (§111-130). In addition the public sector equality duty was discharged in this case (§146).

Key issues: discrimination, proportionality, a1p1, a2p1

Appeal dismissed in relation to VAT on private school fees, in an appeal brought by two groups of claimants (children and parents of children at private schools operated by the Charedi Jewish community; and private schools following a strictly Evangelical curriculum) who sought a carve out for schools with low fees.
Notably, the Court of Appeal took its own proportionality analysis afresh given the significance of the issue rather than considering whether the first instance Judge was wrong (§49-55). On the facts, the measure was justified (§56-97).
Article 1 protocol 1 was not engaged as the school’s complaint was not about goodwill but about a loss of future income which was not a possession (§98-106).
There was no impairment of the very essence of the right to education contrary to article 2 protocol 1 because of the availability of state schools, alternative of home schooling and the measure did not make private schools impossible to operate (§134 143).

Key issues: length of the school week, discrimination

The decision to temporarily close a special school for half a day a week due to unanticipated staffing challenges did not constitute discrimination on the basis of disability. The Court rejected the assertion the cut was to cut funds (§85).
Although the school had returned to a full timetable by the time of the hearing, the claim was not academic because the school maintained it had acted lawfully throughout and did not give any guarantee it would not do so again (§96).
The Secretary of State’s non statutory guidance which exempted “specialist settings” (including special schools) from the minimum expectation of a 32.5 hour week was not discriminatory in relation to disabled people as mainstream schools are not in an equivalent position to specialist settings and the difference in treatment does not amount to less favourable treatment due to disability (§119-125).

Key issues: publication of FTT judgments, open justice

Unless the FTT makes a specific order under rule 14 of the FTT Rules that prohibits the publication of information relating to proceedings (which, in my experience, is standard practice in case management directions), it will not be contempt of court for a person to publish information relating to what happened at the private hearing (§53).
Open justice applies to the FTT, and in deciding whether a derogation from open justice is necessary the tribunal must balance competing rights (§56) and the parties’ views are relevant but not determinative (§57).
In most cases involving SEND in the FTT and UT, where children and young people are vulnerable, it will be necessary to derogate from open justice, but at some point it should be considered whether and to what extent it is necessary to maintain the derogation (§60-66).
On the facts of the case, the name of the school was published (§73-84).

B. Exclusions

R (PZP) v HS Academy Trust [2026] EWHC 489 (Admin)

Key issues: exclusions, SEN expert, remit of judicial review

A governing body must provide a SEN expert at an IRP if one is requested by the parent (§53). However where the parents were made aware of the right to seek an adjournment and did not, that can constitute a waiver.
The Court reaffirmed that decisions on permanent exclusion are for the school and a decision can only be challenged on public law grounds; and it cannot substitute its views particularly on findings of fact (§93).

C. Special Educational Needs

LB Hillingdon v AP [2026] EWCA Civ 216

Key issues: academic claims

Court of Appeal did not consider grounds of appeal where matters in relation to a child’s special educational provision had significantly moved on since the EHCP under challenge and any remedy would be of no practical utility (§23-27).

Key issues: responsibility for a child/young person, ordinary residence

In determining whether a child is in a local authority’s area, so that they are responsible that child under section 24 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (“CFA 2014”), the ordinary residence test should be used (§206) (NB this departs from the previous approach in JG v Kent CC [2016] EWHC 1102 (Admin) §134).
Where a child’s family moved to Dubai for a parent’s military service, had kept their house in the UK and did not intend to settle permanently in Dubai, the child remained the responsibility of the LA (§225-6)

Key issues: mandatory duties, declarations, academic claims

Despite an argument that the claim was academic, Court granted declaration for LA’s failure to complete an EHC needs assessment within the statutory timescales, despite the assessment having been carried out by the time of the hearing (§80-89).

Key issues: specificity in Section F

It was lawful and sufficiently specific for Section F to provide for a “small class which can offer a low arousal environment, with an adult pupil ratio sufficient to ensure a high level of direct teacher input throughout the day” and there was no need to specify a number (§13-16).

Key issues: deemed special educational provision

In considering provision for seven elements of special educational provision sought (“the drama group, the Duke of Edinburgh course, the volunteering, the gym sessions and membership, the therapeutic gardening, and the travel training”), the FTT failed to consider whether they would “educate or train” such that even if they were social care provision they would be deemed special educational provision under section 21(5) CFA 2014 (§11-21).
Had it required more information, it should have considered using its inquisitorial jurisdiction, particularly where parents were unrepresented (§22).

Key issues: special educational provision

Special educational provision must be “called for” by special educational needs, or to put it another way did not have sufficient “nexus” between the young person’s special educational needs and provision. In this case golf coaching and gym training did not have such a nexus, and they catered to areas of strengths of the young person. The nexus was too tenuous (§17-26).