Education

Our education barristers have extensive experience of appearing in the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) regarding appeals under the Children and Families Act 2014 concerning Education, Health and Care Plans, acting for parents, young people and local authorities.

We are well placed to offer strategic advice in relation to SEND litigation and representation at tribunal hearings. Members can also assist with appeals to the Upper Tribunal or higher courts.

We undertake work in the full range of appeals in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: refusal to assess appeals, refusal to issue an EHC Plan appeals, appeals concerning the content of EHC Plans, and cease to maintain appeals. We are experienced in cases involving high-cost placement and provision disputes, cases where the Tribunal’s extended jurisdiction for health and social care is engaged, and cases where complex Education Otherwise than in School (EOTIS) packages are sought.

Where an issue falls outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, we can assist with judicial review challenges in this area, for example (but not limited to) cases concerning enforcement of the duty to secure the special educational provision contained in an EHC Plan.

Outer Temple Chambers has an outstanding reputation for our work in Discrimination and Equality claims. Members of the education team undertake regular discrimination work in the employment context as well as in relation to the education sector. We are very well placed to assist with equality issues, whether in relation to disability discrimination claims concerning school pupils in the First-tier Tribunal; or County Court discrimination claims brought against schools, academies, colleges, or universities in relation to the full range of protected characteristics and claims that can be brough under the Equality Act 2010. Members also have experience of equality issues arising in the context of judicial review claims.

The education team has significant experience of contract and negligence claims made by parents of pupils or students against schools, academies, colleges and universities – acting for individuals and institutions. Such claims are often be linked to other legal areas, for example concerning discrimination or data protection, which team members are well placed to assist with. Our barristers are highly experienced in civil litigation, and combine this with a focussed understanding of the education sector and the particular issues that can arise in it.

The Education team is experienced in representing parties before Independent Appeal Panels, and Independent Review Panels, in relation to admissions and exclusions decisions; and of judicial review challenges arising in these areas. Members have also represented parties in internal proceedings before school governing bodies, for example concerning the proposed exclusion of pupils. As referred to above, the team has extensive experience of discrimination claims – this includes where discrimination is alleged in relation to admissions or exclusions decisions.

Outer Temple’s Education team is regularly instructed in higher education matters. This ranges from advice and assistance with internal proceedings within univeristies, complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), and civil or public law claims brought against universities. We have experience of acting for students and institutions alike, such as in cases concerning academic misconduct (such as plagiarism), other forms of misconduct, health/extenuating circumstances issues, and termination of studies cases. We are well placed to advise on the variety of legal considerations that can arise in such cases, including but not limited to negligence, contract, equality, and public law.

The team has experience of judicial review challenges arising in the education context made against local authorities, central government, government departments, educational institutions, and other public authorities such as qualification awarding bodies or the OIA, acting for claimant and defendants. This includes where human rights arguments are engaged, or where linked areas such as equality or child and adult social care can arise. This sits in the context of wider public law experience members of the team hold.

Members of the team can assist individuals in navigating complex internal processes within schools, colleges, and universities, and can provide representation within internal proceedings. Equally, members can assist institutions in dealing with complex and high-risk complaints, by ensuring that an institution’s policies and procedures are legally compliant, and by advising on linked areas such as employment relations or regulatory compliance.

Our experience includes (but is not limited to) issues relating to pupil safeguarding, handling of peer-on-peer abuse allegations, handling of allegations concerning inappropriate conduct of staff towards others (including pupils or students), academic misconduct allegations such as plagiarism, and fitness to practice issues in the context of courses leading to professional qualifications.

Members can also offer advice and assistance to individuals about where to take their complaints next following the conclusion of internal proceedings (whether by making a legal claim, or through alternatives where they exist such as further complaints to the OIA), and to institutions in responding to and defending their position where such steps are taken.

Our barristers can act in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal in Care Standards and Primary Health List cases. We have experience of cases concerning the regulation of care homes. Members have also acted in appeals against decisions by the Secretary of State for Education to issue a barring notice preventing a person being involved with the management of a school.

Members also have experience of Disclosure and Barring issues, and appeals against decisions to place an individual on a barred list. Where such matters intersect issues of employment law, members of the team are very well placed to assist.

Members are experienced in relation to fitness to practice issues arising in relation to regulated professionals and students studying courses that will lead to entry into a regulated profession.

Members of the team have experience in relation to the above areas, but also specialise in other areas of work which complement their education practice, for example:   

• Employment & Discrimination – Sarah Crowther KC, Alex Line, Imogen Egan, Courtney Step-Marsden, Monique Bouffé and Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson are particularly well placed to deal with EqA 2010 claims arising in the education context. 
• Mental Capacity – John McKendrick KC, Alex Cisneros, Katarina Sydow  and Carin Hunt are mental capacity specialists, particularly useful in cases involving young persons with EHC Plans.   
• Safeguarding – Patrick Sadd, Sarah Crowther KC and Imogen Egan have extensive safeguarding experience.  
• Judicial Review – Sarah Crowther KC, John McKendrick KC, Alex Line, Alex Cisneros, Katarina Sydow, Monique Bouffé, Carin Hunt and Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson have judicial review experience.  
• Statutory Appeals – John McKendrick KC, Alex Line, Alex Cisneros, Imogen Egan, Carin Hunt, Courtney Step-Marsden, Imogen Egan, Monique Bouffé, and Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson regularly deal with statutory appeals concerning EHC Plans, acting for individuals and local authorities. They have relevant and current experience of hearings in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. John McKendrick KC is well known and respected for his expertise in this area of work and has a number of High Court and Upper Tribunal decisions to his name.  
• Further Education and Higher Education – Members have relevant current experience of FE and HE work, including in an advisory capacity, internal hearings in universities, and county court claims. 

Paul Rogers is appointed as a fee paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal assigned to the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber. He is authorised to sit in the SEND Tribunal. 

• R (Sharp) v Office of the Schools Adjudicator & Impact Multi Academy Trust & London Borough of Bromley & Secretary of State for Education [2023] EWHC 1242 (Admin)– Represented the second interested party (local authority) in this judicial review against a decision of the Schools Adjudicator concerning fairness of admissions arrangement.
• Averre-Beeson v Secretary of State for Education [2024] UKFTT 00385 (HESC). Represented SSfE (instructed by the government legal department) in this appeal under s.129 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which went to the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal (in its Care Standards jurisdiction). These were long running proceedings emanating from a high profile and widely reported collapse of a large multi-academy trust.
• Westminster County Council v (1) First-tier Tribunal and (2) A [2023] UKUT 117 (AAC)– Represented the Claimant in a challenge to a review decision of the First-tier Tribunal (an excluded decision under the TCEA 2007, against which no right of appeal exists, thus the case needed to proceed by way of judicial review).
• Hampshire County Council v GC & GC[2024] UKUT 128 (AAC) –  appeal to the Upper Tribunal against First-tier Tribunal decision upholding an appeal against the local authority’s termination of an EHCP on the basis that the armed forces family were not currently  in the area, although they were due back. Described as a ‘test case’ concerning families of armed forces personnel who have children with special educational needs. Permission has been granted to appeal this decision in the Court of Appeal, which is due to be heard in 2025.
• CM v Surrey County Council– Appeal to the Upper Tribunal on behalf of parents of a child with SEN.
• DH v London Borough of Bromley – Represented the Defendant in a judicial review claim alleging breaches of s.42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (failure to maintain an EHC Plan).
• B v Hertfordshire County Council – successful representation of young person in the First-tier Tribunal in an extended appeal, securing a residential waking day placement at a cost of around £300k per annum.
• Av London Borough of Islington– Represented the local authority in highly challenging proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (SEND) concerning a young person with a range of needs and a school refuser. 4 hearings and a final decision of 69 pages.
• Governing Body of T School v AA & RR [2023] UKUT 311 (AAC) – Appeal against First-tier Tribunal decision which found that the school had discriminated (on basis of disability) against a pupil by excluding him, contrary to s.15 EqA 2010.
• A Parent v Governing Body of XYZ School [2022] EWHC 1146 (Admin) – represented the Governing Body in the High Court in this judicial review claim. The judgment gives important guidance about school exclusion procedure and safeguarding.  
• MAR v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [2024] – Instructed by the parent in a successful appeal in the First-tier Tribunal against Sections B, F, and H.
• BM v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham [2024] – Instructed by the parent in a successful appeal in the First-tier Tribunal against Sections F and I, securing a special school placement and extensive SALT and OT provision.
• ZA v Sandwell Local Authority [2023] – Instructed by the parent in a successful appeal against Sections F and I.
• CHS v London Borough of Croydon [2023] – Instructed by the parent in an appeal concerning the need for an extended-day curriculum.