[2024] UKUT 406 (AAC)

D and S were registered pupils at Kingston Grammar School. They were required to leave the School in 2022; the Appellant says that this was due to her alleged conduct. The Appellant claimed before the First-tier Tribunal that the School discriminated against her children in contravention of the 2010 Act. That claim argued that both children were disabled for the purposes of the 2010 Act.

In relation to D, whom a clinical psychologist had diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), the School’s response to the claim included the following:

“Pragmatically and to save Tribunal time, the fact of that diagnosis will not be challenged, although as it was reached without seeking any information from the School and, the [Responsible Body] infers, at least in part on the basis of untested information provided by the Claimant, the [Responsible Body] does not formally concede even the diagnosis.

It is further agreed that it follows that [D] will have had ASD throughout her time at the School.”

I should add that the School also clearly disputed that D was disabled for the purposes of the 2010 Act on the basis that any impairment which she had did not have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. In relation to question whether S was disabled, the School took effectively the same stance as with D (paragraph 28 of the School’s response to the Appellants’ claims).

A telephone case management hearing took place on 10 January 2023 at which it was agreed that the evidence of Dr Vassiliadou (clinical psychologist who diagnosed D with ASD) and Dr Nwagbogu (consultant psychiatrist who diagnosed S with ADHD) would be in writing. The School indicated that it only wished to cross-examine a Dr Thompson, if his evidence were relied on by the Appellant.

A hearing date was listed for 7 March 2023. Both parties attended with legal representatives, but the hearing was adjourned because the judge had been unable to open the pdf bundle. The Tribunal’s adjournment direction indicated that it was necessary to read the bundle documents so that witnesses could be effectively questioned on the issue whether there was a substantial and adverse long-term impact on the children’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The Appellant’s claims were re-listed to be heard on 19 and 20 April 2023.

The Appellant’s solicitors came ‘off the record’ on 17 March 2023. The Appellant’s counsel (Mr Dunlop KC) was not instructed on a direct access basis so that, according to the Appellant, she was left without legal representation for the hearing on 19 April 2023.