header-logo header-logo

15 August 2018
Issue: 7806 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

School exclusion was unlawful

Schools can no longer rely on an Equality Act exemption to exclude children with disabilities who have ‘a tendency to physically abuse’, following an Upper Tribunal decision.

The ruling, C&C v Governing Body [2018] UKUT 269 (AAC), could potentially affect thousands of schoolchildren with special educational needs.

A 13-year-old boy, L, was excluded for ‘a tendency to physically abuse’ even though his behaviour was linked to his autism. Pupils that fall under this category are usually considered exempt from the protection of the Equality Act 2010 under reg 4(1)(c), which means schools do not need to justify the exclusion.

Allowing L’s parents’ appeal, however, Judge Rowley said the use of the exemption came ‘nowhere near striking a fair balance between the rights of children such as L on the one side and the interests of the community on the other’.

‘Aggressive behaviour is not a choice for children with autism,’ she said. ‘To my mind it is repugnant to define as “criminal or anti-social” the effect of the behaviour of children whose condition (through no fault of their own) manifests itself in particular ways so as to justify treating them differently from children whose condition has other manifestations.’

Polly Sweeney, partner at Irwin Mitchell, which acted for the parents, said: ‘This decision does not mean that schools are prevented from excluding children where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. However, it will ensure all disabled children are afforded the same safeguards, protections and rights under the law regardless of whether their disability gives rise to challenging behaviour.’

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said: ‘We will be carefully considering the judgment and its implications before deciding the next steps.’

Issue: 7806 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll