The High Court (Bourne J) has handed down judgment in R(CKT and DGT) v Twyford Church of England Academies Trust, and the Office of the Schools Adjudicator [2025] [2025] EWHC 2396 (Admin).
The Claimants brought two separate challenges both concerned the question of whether a faith-based oversubscription criterion within the admission arrangements of Twyford Church of England High School (“the school” or “Twyford”) was indirectly discriminatory in relation to the protected characteristic of race, contrary to the prohibition on discrimination in section 85(1)(a) and (c) of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EA”). The criterion in question involved the award of an additional one point (above the 20 points awarded to those of the Christian faith) to applicants where the family’s main place of worship was at a Church of England church or Churches in Communion with the Church of England (the “Extra Point”).
The two claims were brought against decisions respectively of (i) Twyford Church of England Academies Trust (“the Trust”) which administers the school, and its Admissions Appeal Panel, not to admit DGT, and (ii) the decision of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (“OSA”) to reject an objection by CKT to the same criterion in the 2025/2026 admission arrangements. The Court dealt with the two claims together in a single judgment.
The claim against the Trust also alleged a continuing breach of the public sector equality duty (“PSED”) under section 149 of the EA by the Trust in adopting, maintaining and applying the impugned criterion (the Extra Point).
The local Diocesan Board of Education, which has a statutory consultative role in Church of England schools’ admission criteria, was joined as an interested party.
Amongst other matters, the Trust and OSA, supported by the Diocese, argued that faith based criteria, which are commonly adopted by schools with a religious designation and recognised by the statutory regime as entirely lawful, frequently had the effect of discriminating indirectly against people of different nationalities and races, because adherents of different religions and denominations normally have a different racial profile from the general local population near a school. They also pointed to the School’s particularly strong Church of England ethos, and argued that the Extra Point was a proportionate way of supporting that ethos.
The Secretary of State was permitted to intervene to argue (i) that as a matter of statutory interpretation by dint of paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 of the EA a claimant could not advance a claim of indirect race discrimination against an admissions criterion that “relates to” a religion and belief; and (ii) if that is wrong, then the Court should give significant weight to the policy objective of paragraph 5 of Schedule 11, namely allowing faith schools to admit pupils or set admission arrangements for pupils based on the religious character or ethos of the school.
The Court dismissed both claims on the basis that the extra point was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It agreed with the Trust’s and OSA’s submissions. The Secretary of State’s first point was not accepted, but the Court agreed with the Secretary of State that the Court should afford considerable weight to the policy rationale for faith based schools.
The Court also dismissed the PSED challenge, and held that even if he was wrong on his conclusion on the PSED, it was highly likely that the Trust would not have changed its oversubscription criteria had it fully complied with the PSED (applying section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981). The judgment is available here.
Peter Oldham KC acted for the Trust.
Tom Cross KC acted for the OSA.
Joanne Clement KC and Zoe Gannon acted for the Secretary of State for Education.
