CA-2025-002133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1335

The GDC Reconsideration

On 8 April 2025 the same three governors met to reconsider their first decision, as they had been directed to do. They did not hold a further hearing but issued a decision letter with reasons for upholding their original decision to uphold the Headteacher’s permanent exclusion decision. The letter rehearsed some of the background and set out the IRP’s paragraphs 19-21, and continued in this way:

“However, the panel noted that the scope of the issues to be considered by the IRP had focused solely on the grounds of procedural flaws and that they had not agreed to consider any aspects regarding irrationality or illegality in their considerations. With this in mind, the panel felt that they did not need to respond to any concerns raised on irrationality or illegality issues.

The panel acknowledged the IRP finding that there had been procedural errors in the process in reaching the decision to uphold the school's decision to permanently exclude [SAG]. However, the panel wished to emphasise that in holding the "ex-parte" meeting with the Headteacher, after the family and representative and clerk had left the meeting, there was no dishonesty intended or deliberate non-compliance with suspensions and exclusions policies. The panel believed that they had acted in the best interests of all parties by consulting with the Headteacher to consider whether an alternative sanction, equitable to permanent exclusion, existed.

With regard to paragraph 19. the panel confirmed they had read the Appellant's submission and reflected on its content. Having done so however, the panel emphasised they did not agree with the vast majority of the conclusions reached and noted a number of issues, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in the response, including but not limited to the following:”

[the GDC then made a series of points about Mr Mal’s submissions]

For these reasons the GDC did not in fact reconsider any part of its first decision except the approach it had taken to the second limb, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier decision had been quashed and the contents of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the IRP decision letter. This was not a case, like TZA, where an IRP had recommended reconsideration of a decision. No challenge has been made directly to this approach.

The GDC said this about the second limb (I have used numbers instead of bullet points for the sub-paragraphs in paragraph 3 for ease of reference):-