E.O. v Minister for Education

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Bolger
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 561
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2022 491 JR]

Between

E.O. and T.O. (A Minor Suing by his Mother and Next Friend E.O.)

Applicant

and

The Minister for Education, T.F., J.W., S.G., A School and The Patron of a School

Respondents

[2022] IEHC 561

[2022 491 JR]

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Enrollment – Education Act 1998 s. 29 – Applicant seeking an order for certiorari and declaratory relief – Whether fair procedures were applied

Facts: The applicant, the parent of a four-year-old child, applied to the High Court for an order for certiorari and declaratory relief in relation to the outcome of her Education Act 1998 s. 29 appeal against the decision of the Board of Management of the sixth respondent national school to refuse her application to enrol her child for the school year 2022-2023 in accordance with the school’s admissions policy. The applicant identified the following three issues: (1) whether the decision of the Appeals Committee has a proper evidential basis and is supported by proper reason; (2) whether the Appeals Committee applied fair procedures in reaching its decision; and (3) whether the school’s admission policy is operable and effective when it does not specify the Roman Catholic parish boundary of the town, and if so, what the proper course of the Appeals Committee was. The respondents added a fourth issue if the applicant was found to be entitled to any of the reliefs sought: (4) whether the court should refuse to grant such relief in exercise of its discretion on grounds of futility.

Held by Bolger J that she would refuse all of the reliefs sought. She was satisfied that the decision of the Appeals Committee refusing the applicant’s appeal had a proper evidential basis, was supported by proper reasons and the Appeal Committee properly discharged its statutory responsibility to examine and determine the applicant’s appeal by reference to the grounds of the applicant’s appeal. Bolger J held that insofar as the appeal addressed concerns about the boundary of the town, this did not relate to disputing the entitlement of a child ranked ahead of the applicant’s child within the application of criteria 2 residence in the parish. Bolger J held that the case that the applicant sought to make before the court to the effect that the applicant was denied the opportunity to test the entitlement of those successfully enrolled children following on an application of criteria 2 and/or that the Appeals Committee was obliged to interrogate the Board’s stated basis for finding those children to have been entitled to a place on the application of criteria 2, was not one that was made by the applicant in her appeal to the Board or identified by her as part of her grounds of appeal to the s. 29 committee. Bolger J was not satisfied that the Appeals Committee’s failure to share the information it had received from the Board, specifically the breakdown of the numbers of children offered a place by reference to criteria 1 and the number of children offered a place on the application of criteria 2, with the applicant had any relevant impact on her ability to make her case to the Appeals Committee and/or to be heard in making that case. Bolger J was therefore satisfied that there was no basis to find that the applicant was entitled to any of the reliefs she had sought by reference to a denial of fair procedures within the Appeals Committee’s process. Bolger J was satisfied that the admissions policy was operative and effective even without the inclusion of a parish map, at least insofar as the exercise by the Appeals Committee of its statutory jurisdiction under s. 29 was concerned. Bolger J held that the Board’s failure to furnish the applicant with a copy of the map did not restrict the applicant in formulating her appeal to the Appeals Committee or restrict the Appeals Committee in their ability to satisfy themselves that the Board had properly applied the admissions policy including in relation to those specific elements of their application of it that had been criticised by the applicant in her appeal.

Bolger J held that if she was incorrect in her conclusions, she should exercise her discretion against remitting the applicant’s appeal to a fresh Appeals Committee as to do so could have no benefit for the applicant and would be futile.

Application refused.

Approved Judgment

Redacted

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Bolger delivered on the 29th day of July, 2022

1 . This is an application by the parent of a four-year-old child for an order for certiorari and declaratory relief in relation to the outcome of their s. 29 appeal against the decision of the Board of Management of the sixth named respondent national school to refuse their application to enrol their child for the school year 2022–2023 in accordance with the school's admissions policy. I heard the application on 26 July last. Because it relates to a school place for the school year due to commence on 1 September and the need for all parties to have clarity in advance of that date, I have expedited delivery of my judgment. For the reasons set out below I am refusing the application.

Background

2 . The school's board of management (hereinafter referred to as the Board) published its submission policy on the 29 September, 2021 in which it set out the criteria it would use to prioritise applications for enrolment where the school was oversubscribed. The policy includes criteria 1 prioritising siblings of pupils attending the school in the previous school year and criteria 2 prioritising applicants currently living within the Roman Catholic parish boundary of the town.

3 . The applicant, who lives in the town in the parish and close to the school, applied for a place for her child for the school year 2022/23. In February 2022 she was informed that the criteria had been applied as the school was oversubscribed and her child was not being offered a place but was placed number four on the waiting list. The applicant sought a review of that decision from the Board in which the applicant asked the board to define the boundary of the town, to clarify the subdivisions and the order in which they are applied. The Applicant asked for an explanation why children from Carton are being accepted into the school at all as Carton is outside the parish. She states: “The Parish of the town and what areas make up the parish are clearly documented on Wikipedia and all other supporting maps and this does not include Carton”. The Applicants refers to a conversation with the principal from which she learned that 18 pupils had been accepted based on the siblings criteria and she asked how the 10 pupils after this got accepted ahead of her child and what criteria was applied to approving their application. The appeal concludes with a statement that the admissions policy needs to be revised and updated.

4 . The applicant raised points about the suitability of the admission policy which she accepted before this court were outside the jurisdiction of a s. 29 appeal. The Board conducted a review and upheld their previous decision. The Board did not respond to the applicant's request for a copy of the map or information about the breakdown of the applicants who were enrolled pursuant to the sibling criteria 1.

5 . The applicant appealed the Board's decision refusing enrolment to the first to fourth named respondents in accordance with s. 29 of the Education Act, 1998 as amended by the Education (Admission to Schools) Act, 2018 which she grounded on her appeal to the Board. That appeal made a number of points, many of which were outside the jurisdiction of the appeals committee. The applicant's Counsel contended that some of her grounds of appeal were relevant points including the issue about seeking a definition of the boundary of the town. The board furnished the Appeals Committee with a questionnaire which identified the number of children who secured a place under criteria 1 (the siblings' rule) and criteria 2 (residence in the parish). That breakdown had not been furnished to the applicant. The appeal was considered by the Appeals Committee and by written decision dated 27 April 2022 it was refused.

6 . These proceedings seek to quash that decision, various related declaratory relief and an Order remitting the matter to the first to fourth named respondents with a direction to reconsider it and reach a decision in accordance with the findings of this court.

Issues

7 . The applicants have identified the following three issues:

• 1. Whether the decision of the Appeals Committee has a proper evidential basis and is supported by proper reason;

• 2. Whether the Appeals Committee applied fair procedures in reaching its decision; and

• 3. Whether the school's admission policy is operable and effective when it does not specify the Roman Catholic parish boundary of the town, and if so, what the proper course of the Appeals Committee was.

8 . The respondents added a fourth issue if the applicant is found to be entitled to any of the reliefs sought, whether the court should refuse to grant such relief in exercise of its discretion on grounds of futility.

The applicant's case

9 . The applicants focused much of their criticism of the process followed by the Board and the decision of the Appeals Committee on the absence of a map attached to the admissions policy showing the boundaries of the town's Roman Catholic parish. Without such a map the applicant contended that the Appeals Committee could not have had an evidential basis for its decision as it could only have concluded the admission policy was correctly applied if it had the addresses of the children who were admitted ahead of the applicant's child along with a map of the parish with which to compare them. The applicant relied on the fact that the information in relation to the breakdown of children admitted under criteria 1 and criteria 2 that was furnished to the Appeals Committee by the Board was not...