skip navigation

Latest News

  C'est Bon, Le Pre-Nup 
  Conduct Determines Legal Ownership 
  Six-Figure Settlement for Botched Heart Surgery 
  Lotto Win Not Part of Family Assets 
  Government to Outlaw Squatting in Residential Premises 
  Father's Gifts to Daughter Challenged by Sister 
  Tribunal Confirms No Compensation for Rock Shareholders 
  Swiss Assets Unfrozen by Court 
  Will Stands Against Challenge 
  House Sales - Replying to Enquiries 
More...

Decision to Expel Pupil Upheld by Courts


 

The parents of an independent school pupil have lost their appeal against a judge’s decision to dismiss their claim that their son’s expulsion from the school amounted to a breach of contract and warranted injunctive relief and the payment of damages by the school. The parents claimed that the expulsion of their son was an unjustifiable and unreasonable reaction to his conduct and the fact that the headmaster knew one of the members of the panel that had reviewed his decision had produced a biased result. They also argued that the panel had failed to make an independent assessment regarding whether or not expulsion of their son was an appropriate action to take in the circumstances.

The decision to expel the boy was initially reached by the headmaster alone. It was then assessed and upheld by the review panel, which consisted of members of the school’s board of governors and an independent member, who was the headmaster of another school. The judge in the lower court concluded that the decision was reached fairly, without bias, subject to an independent review. The parents appealed against the decision.

It was not disputed that the headmaster of the school was acquainted with the independent member of the review panel, but the Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that the two men socialised with one another apart from attending the same church twice a month. They only knew each other on a limited professional basis, which was almost unavoidable given the relatively small number of independent school headmasters. The Court therefore held that a fair minded observer would not consider this would lead to a biased result.

The Court of Appeal also upheld the decision that the review panel had independently assessed whether expulsion was a punishment commensurate with the boy’s conduct. The judge had not only examined the panel’s written decision but had also taken oral evidence from its members and taken account of the notes made during the decision-making process. The panel had in fact dismissed some of the reasons put forward by the headmaster of the school as justification for his decision to expel the boy but concluded for itself that the boy’s conduct did warrant expulsion. A member of the panel had also given oral evidence explaining the role of the panel and this had assisted the judge in reaching his decision.

The Court found that, taken in its entirety, the evidence showed that the panel’s decision was reached fairly and independently and so the parents’ appeal was dismissed.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
 
 

Steed & Steed Solicitors, 76-82 & 86 Coggeshall Road, Braintree, Essex, CM7 9BY | Tel: 01376 552828
6 Gainsborough Street, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2ET | Tel: 01787 373387

© Steed & Steed Solicitors. All rights reserved. | Legal Disclaimer | Complaints Procedure
Steed & Steed LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - No. 508781

Registered in England and Wales under Registered No. OC 343265.
A list of members names is available for inspection at the registered office at 6 Gainsborough Street, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 2ET.

Where we use the word Partner or Principal it denotes member of Steed & Steed LLP.

[smaller] Change text size [larger]