School governing body given permission for challenge to independent appeals panel admission decision

In The Governing Body of Leighton Middle School, R (On the Application Of) v Independent Appeals Panel of Central Bedfordshire Council [2026], Alison Morgan KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, concluded that both grounds submitted by the claimant had a “realistic prospect of success”.

The claimant in the case is the Governing Body of Leighton Middle School. The defendant is the Independent Appeals Panel of Central Bedfordshire Council.

The claimant sought to challenge a decision made by the independent appeals panel to admit a child, C, to Leighton Middle School - communicated in a letter in October 2025.

The deputy High Court judge said C's family moved to the area which includes the claimant school, in the middle of the school summer term.

In June 2025, C's mother applied for a place at the claimant's primary school for Year 5.

C did not receive an offer from the claimant's school and instead was admitted to another local school - located approximately 1.8 miles from C's home address. The claimant's school is located under a mile from C's address.

C's mother appealed the decision not to offer C a place at the claimant school. Her grounds of appeal were as follows:

• The allocated school was 1.8 miles from her home and she does not drive.
• She had a baby who should not spend that amount of time in a pushchair.
• She cannot afford the cost of daily transport. The journey required a bus followed by significant walking.
• Her husband is unable to help with transport as he is working, and she had to leave her job because of lack of childcare and transport options.
• She cannot walk long distance because of health issues related to her physical size.

The admissions appeal was heard by the Independent Appeals Panel in October 2025.

The claimant's headteacher and a representative of the local authority were present at the appeal and made a number of representations. They made the following key observations:

• Leighton Middle School is oversubscribed.
• Admitting further children to Year 5 would impact on the school's accommodation and affect the quality of teaching and learning for which it is known.
• To overpopulate a school when places exist in other middle schools nearby is not conducive to effective outcomes for pupils.
• The school has a duty to ensure that all pupils receive a high standard of education and to further exceed the published admissions number and admit an additional pupil would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the effective use of resources.

The decision letter sent to C's mother stated:

“Your appeal was successful. The decision was unanimous.

[…] The Panel's decision making comprised of two stages. In the first stage, the Panel had to decide whether:

• • the Admissions Arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements, of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the SSFA 1998;
  • the Admissions Arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in C's case;
  • the admission of an additional child would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.

Stage 1 Decision

The Panel evaluated the case put by the Admission Authority in relation to your appeal very carefully. The Panel were satisfied that the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admission Code and Part 3 of the SSFA 1998.

However, the Panel found that the Admission Authority had not proven that prejudice would result from allowing an additional child to attend the school for the following reasons:

• • The Panel took into consideration that it had been verbally stated that every year the school lose pupils from year 5 and have a lower number starting in year 6. The school were confident that they would be down to 150 PAN by the start of year 6.
  • The Panel noted that none of the other year groups at the school were over PAN, and two of them were under PAN. This corresponded with historically losing pupils before year 6.
  • The school were over their overall capacity by two pupils, but the Panel found that it was the year 5 cohort that was over their PAN and the Year 5 cohort had a purpose-built block made to the recommended DfE classroom sizes. This enabled the physical space to accommodate the additional pupils and did not impact on the space in the older main part of the school, which was used for year 6 upwards.
  • The Panel acknowledged the high SEN requirements but reasoned that these were not dissimilar to other local schools, as there was a rising trend nationally.
  • The Panel understood that the schools staffing, and budget has been set already, and that the school were an in-year deficit but determined that an additional classroom or teacher would not be required to accommodate an additional child in year 5.
  • The Panel concluded that based on the evidence heard, admitting one pupil to Leighton Middle School in year 5 would not greatly impact on the quality of teaching and learning for each pupil and the existing resources at the school.
  • The Panel found that the Admission Authority had not demonstrated prejudice over and above the fact that the published admission number had already been reached and therefore concluded that the appeal should be upheld at this stage."

The Governing Body is seeking to challenge the decision letter on the following grounds:

• Ground 1 - Failure to follow the Code: The Independent Appeals Panel failed to apply the School Admission Appeals Code 2022 (the Code). This is a mandatory Code issued by Parliament and failure to follow the Code is unlawful.
• Ground 2 - Illegality: The Independent Appeals Panel reached a number of conclusions about the impact of C's admission to the school which appear to have been based on evidence that was not addressed at the appeal hearing including: the wider capacity of the school; the PAN numbers across the school; the capacity in Years 5 and 6; the particular demands presented by those with special educational needs; the special educational needs position of other schools in the area.

On ground 1, counsel for the claimant submitted that the notes of the hearing, including those relating to the deliberations, made no reference to the Appeals Code being considered or applied.

In her analysis of this ground, Alison Morgan KC said: “In my judgment, there are clear indications that the mandatory requirements of the Appeals Code were not complied with by the defendant. The typed notes of the hearing are not complete and cannot be described as an 'accurate record'.

“The deliberation note suggests that the Panel may have had regard to information which was not presented in evidence for the parties to consider. The decision letter is not presented in a manner that is easily comprehensible and which allows the parties to understand the basis upon which the decision was made.”

She continued: “It is not possible to know whether or how the Panel approached these essential steps in the Appeals Code:

3.2 (a): how did the Panel determine that the admission arrangements complied with the Admissions Code and Part 3 of the SSFA 1998?

3.2(b): how did the Panel determine that the admissions arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question?

3.3.: how did the Panel determine that the admission of C would not prejudice the provision of effective education or the efficient use of resources?

“In my judgment, it is arguable that this demonstrates that the Defendant acted unlawfully and there is a realistic prospect of success on this ground.”

The judge moved on to consider whether permission should also be granted on Ground 2.

She said: “The Claimant relies on the well-established principle that a public authority must act reasonably, by taking in account relevant considerations and excluding any irrelevant matter.

“[…] I accept that the weight to be attached to a particular factor is a matter for the public body and I accept the Defendant's submissions in relation to the exercise of its discretion.

“However, in my judgment, the decision letter does not provide a clear explanation as to what evidence the Panel took into consideration at each stage of the Appeals Code. As I have observed, it appears that when approaching the decision at Stage 1, the Panel may have taken into consideration factors that only apply at the point of the balancing exercise in Stage 2. This alone indicates that the Panel may have taken into account irrelevant considerations in its decision at Stage 1.

“Further, there are disputed issues between the parties as to whether there was an evidential basis for the Defendant to arrive at a number of factual conclusions. In this application for permission, I do not need to resolve those disputed issues. I consider that this ground is arguable and has a realistic prospect of success.”

Meanwhile, the judge rejected submissions by the defendant that the claimant had acted in a manner that led to “undue delay” in bringing the claim.

The date of 10 March 2026 was identified for the substantive hearing of the matter, with an estimate of 1 day.

Lottie Winson