BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> E, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of JFS & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 681 (10 July 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/681.html
Cite as: [2009] EWCA Civ 681

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 681
Case Nos: No.1 C1/2008/2187 & No.2 C1/2008/2188

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON. MR JUSTICE MUNBY
No.1 CO/7896/2007
No .2 CO/11587/2007
[2008] EWHC 1665 (Admin)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
10/07/2009

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
LADY JUSTICE SMITH
and
LORD JUSTICE RIMER
____________________

Between:
No.1 THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF E
 Appellant
and -
(i) THE GOVERNING BODY OF JFS
(ii) THE ADMISSIONS APPEAL PANEL OF JFS
- and –
(i) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION
(ii) THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT
(iii) THE OFFICE OF THE SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR
- and –
THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE

AND BETWEEN
No.2 THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF E
- and -
THE OFFICE OF THE SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR
and -
(iv) THE GOVERNING BODY OF JFS
(v) THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT

Respondents



Interested
Parties

Intervener



Appellant


Respondent
(vi) DAVID LIGHTMAN
(vii) KATE LIGHTMAN
and –
(viii)THE BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE
 Interested Parties



Interveners

____________________

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Ms Dinah Rose QC and Ms Helen Mountfield (instructed by Messrs Bindmans ) for the Appellant in both cases
Mr Peter Oldham (instructed by Messrs Stone King Sewell) for the first Respondents No.(i) & (ii)
Mr Tom Lindon QC and Mr Dan Squires (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for Interested Party (i)
Interested Party (ii) did not appear and were not represented
Mr Clive Lewis QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for Interested Party (iii)
Lord Pannick QC and Mr Ben Jaffey (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for the Intervener both cases
Mr Clive Lewis QC (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the second Respondent
Mr Peter Oldham (instructed by Messrs Stone King Sewell) for the Interested Party (iv)
Interested Party (v) did not appear and were not represented
Interested Parties (vi) and (vii) did not appear and were not represented
Mr David Wolfe (instructed by Messrs Leigh Day & Co) for the Intervener (viii)
Hearing dates: Tuesday 12 – Thursday 14 May 2009
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Lord Justice Sedley :

  1. The order which this court has made following the handing down of judgment and the exchange of written submissions is in the main self-explanatory. The parties and participants are, however, entitled to know our reasons for those elements which may not be.

  2. We have made a mandatory order (§7) which seeks to put M as nearly as possible in the situation in which, but for the unlawful criterion, he should have been when he applied to the school in 2007. We have not been deflected from this course by the School's submission that the not insubstantial number of other children who were turned down for the same reason in that year and since would have a similar entitlement. Only M, through his father, is before the court, and it appears to us that it would be an injustice to him, having won on the issue of principle, to be sent away empty-handed. We do not consider that to have to admit an additional pupil is likely to create any serious difficulty for the school.

  3. While we do not underestimate the significance of the court's decision, we do not consider that it is a case of such manifest general importance, or indeed of such legal difficulty, that we ought to grant leave to appeal to the House of Lords. If petitioned, it will be for their Lordships to decide.

  4. The apportionment of costs (§9) reflects the relative active participation of the paying parties in what has been for all practical purposes a single appeal. In particular we have taken the unusual course of requiring an intervener, the United Synagogue, to contribute to the claimant's costs. This is because the United Synagogue, by its leading counsel and with the agreement of the other parties, took on the principal role in opposing the claim and seeking to uphold the first-instance decision. The Secretary of State, while joined as an interested party, both supported the School and sought to advance further arguments.

  5. The Schools Adjudicator, while not appearing, sought to defend his decision and had made common cause with the School in so doing. He has not played the neutral role which would, for example, ordinarily protect justices from a costs order. We understand in particular that he sought to persuade the Community Legal Service to withdraw E's funding.

  6. While the final element of the order (§12) will result either in the order's coming into effect on expiry of the time for petitioning or on dismissal of any petition, or – we would respectfully anticipate - in further directions from their Lordships' House, we record our concern that, unless it is further stayed, paragraph 7 should be implemented promptly and our confidence that this will be done honourably and in good faith.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/681.html