The Supreme Court has ruled that an appeals committee hearing a challenge to a school’s refusal to enrol a student can consider the case in full and replace the school’s decision. The judgment concerned the committee’s powers under section 29 of the Education Act 1998, not whether the two children at the centre of the dispute should have been enrolled.
The case arose after A. and B., whose two daughters were aged 10 and nine, applied for places at St. Molaga’s National School in Balbriggan in about February 2008. The parents had recently moved to the area. The school told them it was full and confirmed the refusal in writing on 6 February 2008.
The school is a senior primary school, serving third to sixth classes, and had a longstanding relationship with St. Peter and St. Paul’s School, which served children up to second class. Its published enrolment policy gave priority to pupils moving from that school, followed by siblings and then other children in specified parish and religious categories. In practice, the judgment said, St. Molaga’s appeared to accept entrants from its associated school and no other applicants.
The parents appealed the refusal, and the appeals committee allowed their appeal. The school then sought judicial review. On 17 February 2009, the High Court quashed the committee’s decisions, holding that section 29 gave the committee a limited review role rather than power to substitute its judgment on a management decision such as school capacity. The committee appealed that ruling.
The Supreme Court considered only this preliminary question: how broadly section 29 authorises an appeals committee to hear an appeal. In a judgment delivered by Denham J. on 23 November 2010, the Court held that the section provides for a full hearing on the merits, beyond reviewing whether the school’s decision was lawful or reasonable. The committee may replace the board’s judgment and make recommendations; the Secretary General may then direct the board to take remedial action.
The Court allowed the appeal on the preliminary issue, finding that the High Court had interpreted the section too narrowly. The judgment does not state a final determination of the children’s enrolment dispute or an order directing the school to admit them.