Disability discrimination

AB v The Governing Body of Kingston Grammar School: [2024] UKUT 406 (AAC): This disability discrimination case makes clear that, in most cases, parents will need to show their child is disabled under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). Evidence of any diagnoses may be helpful but parents must still evidence each element of the definition of disability under the Act, unless their child has a condition which is deemed to be a disability. 

It also confirms how the SEND Tribunal should deal with claims and appeals in the SEND Tribunal (whether under the Act or the Children and Families Act 2014):

• Usually, the SEND Tribunal must hold an oral hearing which deals with all the issues in dispute before making a decision, unless the parties (and the SEND Tribunal) agree to the matter being decided without a hearing.
• If a party fails to attend a hearing, the SEND Tribunal must either hear the matter in the party’s absence or re-arrange the hearing (adjourn it).

Once a hearing has begun and it is clear that a party is absent, the SEND Tribunal cannot decide to deal with the matter on the papers instead of continuing with the hearing.

RD and GD v The Proprietor of Horizon Primary (Responsible Body) (SEN): [2020] UKUT 278 (AAC): Whether or not a part-time timetable is discriminatory will depend on whether it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – the school needs to consider whether the disadvantages caused to the child by the part-time timetable outweigh or are disproportionate to the school’s aim. In this case, on balance, the part-time timetable was determined to be proportionate and therefore it was not discriminatory.

UW v Cheam Academies Network (SEN): [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC): The Upper Tribunal found that: 

By paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 13 to the EA 2010, the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the EA 2010 applies to schools in relation to: (a) deciding who is offered admission as a pupil; and (b) provision of education or access to a benefit, facility or service. The latter encompasses the operation and application of a school’s behaviour policy, including in relation to sanctions and exclusions. The First-tier Tribunal erred in holding it had no jurisdiction to consider a claim of reasonable adjustments in relation to the behaviour policy, including in relation to detentions and exclusions. (Stout, J, paragraph 3 of summary of decision)