The High Court has quashed an education appeals committee decision that a boy should be offered a place at Presentation College Athenry, ruling that the committee had gone beyond the school’s published admissions policy. The appeal must now be reconsidered by a fresh committee.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ni Raifeartaigh on 26 July 2017, concerned the school’s refusal to enrol the anonymised child, C.I., for first year in September 2017. The school had 180 places and received 298 applications. After places were allocated under the first five priority categories in its policy, seven places remained for applicants in category six, which included pupils from listed feeder primary schools. C.I. was not selected in the lottery for those places or in later draws as additional places became available.
C.I.’s parents appealed under section 29 of the Education Act 1998. They said they had moved him from Gaelscoil de hÍde in Oranmore to Craughwell National School after discussions with the secondary school’s former principal, believing the move would secure admission. C.I. had to repeat fifth class after the transfer. The former principal disputed giving any guarantee, saying admission had to follow the school’s policy.
The committee upheld the appeal, citing the parents’ reasonable expectation, the changes they made to their children’s education and what it called the school’s and parents’ “legacy issues”. It recommended that C.I. be offered one of two remaining places. The Secretary General then directed the school to arrange his enrolment.
The school sought judicial review, arguing that the committee had improperly departed from the published policy. The High Court held that a section 29 appeal is a full hearing, but the committee must conduct it within the policy’s parameters. For category six applicants, the policy provided for selection by lottery, apart from a narrowly framed exception for cases of need that the school could uniquely address. No case had been made that this exception applied.
The court concluded that the committee had erred by taking account of the family’s discussions with the former principal and the resulting school transfer. It also criticised the unexplained references to “legacy issues”, saying it would have been prepared to quash the decision on that ground if necessary. It did not decide the school’s separate fair-procedures challenge about how the committee assessed the parents’ account and the former principal’s email.
The court granted certiorari, quashing the committee’s decision, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by a committee. The judgment does not state that the court itself decided whether C.I. should be admitted.