R (on the application of SAG (by her litigation friend ERV)) (Appellant) v The Governing Body of Winchmore School (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0196

Parties

Appellant(s)

SAG

Respondent(s)

The Governing Body of Winchmore School

Issue

These proceedings raise three main issues: (i) whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and to the Judge’s application of it; (ii) whether the Court of Appeal adopted an erroneous approach to the behaviour policy of Winchmore School (the “School”) and the respondent’s approach to it; and (iii) whether the Court of Appeal adopted a flawed approach to the applicable standard of judicial review.

Facts

The Appellant (SAG) was a 14-year-old child when, at variance from the School’s general rule and on account of her personal circumstances, was allowed to take her mobile phone on a school trip, from 18 to 25 January 2025, as long as it had no SIM card. A teacher became aware that SAG’s phone had a SIM card and confiscated the phone. SAG then participated in an attempt to recover her phone, entering a teacher’s hotel room to look for it. After being caught, and following an initial five-day suspension, the School’s head teacher informed SAG’s mother on 5 February 2025 that SAG was permanently excluded from the School. On 3 March 2025, the Governors’ Disciplinary Committee (“GDC”) of the School was convened. Despite its initial view not to uphold the School’s decision to permanently exclude SAG, the GDC eventually decided not to reinstate her. SAG’s mother applied for review of the GDC’s decision. An Independent Review Panel quashed this decision for lack of procedural fairness and directed the School to reconsider the matter. The GDC was reconvened and, on 23 April 2025, its chair informed SAG’s mother that the decision was made to exclude SAG permanently. The GDC’s reasoning mentioned, among other things, that the appellant had committed burglary. SAG sought to quash the decision of permanent exclusion, challenging the reasonableness of the finding that her conduct amounted to a sufficiently serious breach of the School’s Behaviour Policy; the reasonableness and rationality of the finding that SAG would seriously harm the education welfare of herself or others by remaining in the School; and the reasonableness and rationality of the failure to adequately consider alternatives to permanent exclusion. In a Judgment of 8 August 2025, Neil Cameron KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) granted permission to apply for judicial review on all three grounds but rejected each of them in substance. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by majority on 21 October 2025. SAG now appeals to the Supreme Court.