Case Summary: R (London Borough of Islington) v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1798 (Admin)

Background

This case concerns Islington Council’s challenge against the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to convert Pooles Park Primary School into an academy. Following an "Inadequate" Ofsted rating, the Secretary of State issued an Academy Order, a standard response under s4(A1) Academies Act 2010 for schools rated at the lowest level. Islington Council argued that the school’s declining enrolment and financial pressures made closure a better option. Instead of conversion, Islington was of the view that closing Pooles Park would better allow Islington to consolidate resources and support other schools in the area.

Key Facts

• The Regional Schools Commissioner, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, recommended maintaining the Academy Order and selected Bridge Multi-Academy Trust to sponsor Pooles Park.
• The Trust proposed creating a more sustainable model by increasing support for students with special educational needs (SEN).
• The Commissioner’s advice emphasised that the Trust's expertise and potential for shared resources could improve Pooles Park's viability and address community demands for SEN services, particularly given an increase in local SEN enrolment.

Grounds for Review

The LA argued that the decision was unlawful on five grounds:

1. The Secretary of State's conclusion that the school is viable was irrational.
2. The Secretary of State failed to take any, or any reasonable, steps to acquaint herself with relevant material in breach of the Tameside duty, which outlines the requirement to make sufficient inquiry and to take reasonable steps to acquaint oneself with the relevant information (Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014).
3. In all the circumstances, the refusal to revoke the Academy Order was irrational.
4. The decision unlawfully frustrated the council's exercise of its own strategic planning functions, so as to defeat the purpose of the relevant statutory scheme.
5. The Secretary of State unlawfully fettered her discretion by the over-rigid application of her policy on revocation.

Court’s Decision

The High Court upheld the Secretary of State’s decision, finding it within the legal bounds of discretion and not irrational. The judge confirmed that the Secretary of State had the authority to prioritise the goals of the Academy Order, including addressing the school’s Ofsted rating. The Trust’s model to enhance SEN resources was also deemed a rational solution to help the school remain viable, particularly as SEN demand grows.

The Court dismissed the Council’s challenge by ruling that the Secretary of State had met all legal duties, including conducting an adequate inquiry under the Tameside principles. The judgment underscored that the decision to convert under The Bridge Multi-Academy Trust was lawful and practical given the school’s challenges.

You can read the full judgment here.

Implications

This case displays that an Academy Order, once issued due to an inadequate Ofsted rating, holds significant legal weight. The Secretary of State retains strong discretion to convert schools rather than allow closures, even if councils prefer a different course. The ruling suggests that factors like the potential for SEN provision may justify keeping schools open, even with low mainstream enrolments.

For Local Authorities, this decision highlights that any opposition to Academy Orders must be backed by strong, unique reasons, as the government shows a preference for academisation as a corrective measure. In areas where school enrolments are in decline, but SEN needs are increasing, this judgment could set a precedent, signalling a clear path forward for schools facing similar issues.

Of course, the current government is now reviewing the relationship between academies and schools as part of its Children and Wellbeing Bill. You can read our article on the Bill here.

Satnam Virdi and Lauren Hession

SV Law Solicitors and LASEN Ltd

31.01.25

This blog contains general information about law and legal practice. The information is not advice and should not be treated as such.