The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Secular Schools Ireland Limited to the rejection of its application to become patron of a proposed primary school in Carrigtwohill, Co Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 4 September 2015, Mr Justice Hedigan found that the application had failed to include commitments to the required conditions for prospective patrons. The Department deemed it invalid, and it did not proceed to comparative assessment. The judge said the decision was correct and appropriate and refused the relief sought.
The Department had invited applications in February 2015 for patronage of two new primary schools. Its requirements included commitments to accept special education facilities, operate within Department rules and resourcing, and enrol children in the area identified as needing a school. The Department said it had provided the criteria by email, in response to a query, and at a meeting in Tullamore.
The Department’s assessment said the applicant had confirmed willingness to enrol children identified as needing a school, but had not committed to the other requirements. It said commitments to all the listed conditions were mandatory before patronage could be considered for a State-funded school. The New Schools Establishment Group agreed with the Department’s view that the application was invalid.
The company argued that the Minister could not refuse to process its application and that the criteria were not conditions that had to be met when applying. It also said it had not been told about a defect or given a chance to correct it. Its director, Ms DeBurgh, said attendees at the Tullamore meeting had been told applicants submitting information in the wrong format would be contacted and asked to resubmit it. The company also relied on the stated preferences of 98 children.
The respondents argued that the criteria had been clearly set out, that the application was considered and found invalid, and that there was no duty to return defective applications for correction. They cited section 10(2)(f) of the Education Act 1998, which permits recognition where the Minister is satisfied that a patron agrees to comply with regulations and reasonable terms and conditions.
The judge said the dispute concerned how parental rights in education were exercised, and that the Minister could require guarantees to ensure proper education and the efficient use of scarce resources. He found the applicant had been made fully aware of the criteria and had not committed to them. Officials were not required to approach applicants to engage about invalid applications. The court refused the application for relief; it did not order the Department to reconsider the application.