![CA-2025-002133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1335](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
“The Grounds of Challenge
“The Grounds of Challenge
The Appellant challenges the Defendant’s decision on the following grounds:
Ground 1: The unreasonable finding that the Claimant’s conduct amounted to a sufficiently serious breach of the school’s behaviour policy to impose a permanent exclusion.
Ground 2: The unreasonable and irrational finding that the Claimant remaining in the school would “seriously harm” the education welfare of the pupil or others such as staff or pupils in the school.
Ground 3: The unreasonable and irrational failure to adequately consideralternatives to permanent exclusion.”
As I shall explain more fully below, the judge dismissed all three Challenges.
- Heading
- Lord Justice Edis
- Introduction
- Permanent exclusion
- Reasons and recording exclusions
- Guidance on considering the reinstatement of a suspended or permanently excluded pupil
- Part twelve: The governing board’s duty to reconsider reinstatement following a review
- Guidance on the governing board’s duty to reconsider reinstatement following a review
- “Policy Statement
- “ Pupils are responsible for
- “Fixed term suspensions
- “Permanent exclusion
- The misconduct
- The exclusion decision
- The First GDC Decision, meeting on 3 March and letter of 6 March
- Panel deliberations
- Outcome from further discussions between the panel and the Headteacher
- The Independent Review Panel (IRP)
- Reasons for the panel's decision
- The panel's consideration of procedural impropriety
- The panel's consideration of the other grounds
- Points to consider upon reconsideration
- The GDC Reconsideration
- Permanent Exclusion 2 nd Limb Criteria
- Panel's Reconsidered decision
- The Grounds of Challenge that decision and the Grounds of Appeal to this court
- “The Grounds of Challenge
- The Grounds of Appeal (“the Grounds”) are as follows
- The judge’s judgment
- How should the Grounds of Appeal be understood?
- Discussion and analysis Introduction
- Ground 2: Lawful application of the Behaviour Policy
- Ground 3: the standard of review
- The finding that SAG committed burglary
- The unreasonable failure adequately to consider alternative sections
- Conclusions