Permanent exclusion in the Courts: Recent case law trends towards more judicial scrutiny?

It is well known that challenges to permanent exclusion decisions face limited success in court, and the 2024 to 2026 decisions largely affirm this. However, the reasoning applied by the courts indicates a recent overall trend towards a higher level of judicial scrutiny, culminating in the landmark judgment of R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin).

The first application of judicial review principles to a permanent exclusion case under the post-2012 IRP framework came in R (CR) v Independent Review Panel of the London Borough of Lambeth [2014] EWHC 2461 (Admin). The standard principles of judicial review were engaged, namely, illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

In R (RWU) v Governing Body of A Academy [2024] EWHC 2828 (Admin), Fordham J articulated a standard of “close scrutiny” for reviewing permanent exclusion decisions, after accepting that the context and circumstances, questions about safeguarding and vulnerability, and importance of education and its protective environment pointed towards a more exacting intensity of review. He clarified that this “close scrutiny” reduces the benevolence afforded to decision makers. It also increases judicial reluctance to allow retrospective reasoning for a decision, without affecting the application of conventional public law principles.

Despite conceptualising this framework of scrutiny, Fordham J dismissed the JR case before him. This began a pattern for cases in 2025 into 2026 whereby courts would acknowledge “close scrutiny” for review but continue to uphold exclusion decisions, on the facts.

R (CM) v Independent Review Panel of PQR Academy Trust [2025] EWHC 1414 (Admin) involved child criminal exploitation and Article 4 ECHR. The claim for judicial review of the IRP decision was dismissed, but the court nevertheless held that the risk of exploitation and the effect of permanent exclusion on that risk should be considered by the school regardless of any consideration given to Article 4 ECHR.

Similarly, R (NAA) v Independent Review Panel and LB Haringey [2025] EWHC 185 (Admin) raised arguments concerning child criminal exploitation which again failed to overturn the pupil’s permanent exclusion. The judge held that while a credible suspicion of trafficking was liable to be a relevant factor in deciding whether to permanently exclude, the IRP was not under a duty to respond to that factor in a particular way.

R (TZA) v A Secondary School [2025] EWCA Civ 200 saw the Court of Appeal upholding a permanent exclusion decision where the headteacher’s decision to exclude had included a legal error. It was emphasised that the headteacher’s decision and the governing body’s assessment constitutes a single decision-making process, and that it is the object of the governing body procedure to ensure that the governors are best placed to decide on whether exclusion is required. Underhill LJ found that such an error by the headteacher can thus be cured by the governors and that it would not make sense if governors were under a duty to automatically overturn the exclusion upon detecting an error.

R (SAG) v Governing Body of Winchmore School [2025] EWCA Civ 1335 notably exposed disagreement within the Court of Appeal as to what “close scrutiny” requires. The Court of Appeal was split two to one as to whether “close scrutiny” had been properly applied by the High Court. The case involved a fourteen-year-old pupil who, during a school trip, had kept a phone with a SIM card inside without permission. Her phone was confiscated and she subsequently entered the teacher’s hotel room in an attempt to retrieve it. As a result, she was permanently excluded.

The majority dismissed the appeal. They affirmed that a more intense standard of review was required for permanent exclusions due to the impact on a child’s education and considered that such a standard had been applied correctly by the High Court in accordance with both limbs of the statutory threshold. Laing LJ, part of the majority, reviews the standard and states that it does not follow from RWU that intense review requires it to be shown that the decision was in no way flawed. Laing LJ also expresses doubt as to what is gained with a heightened standard of review when examining a decision that involves serious consequences for the pupil. She stresses the status of governors as lay people, not legal professionals, and seems to associate RWU’s “close scrutiny” with a requirement that decision-makers’ reasons be entirely free from legal errors.

In dissent, Edis LJ found that the correct standard of “close scrutiny” had not been applied by the High Court. Edis LJ quotes and supports Chamberlain J’s analysis of a more intense standard of scrutiny from R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin): that the court’s approach to assessing the rationality of a decision should vary based on the importance of the affected interests. Applying this to the present case, Edis LJ determines that the highly significant impact of permanent exclusion on the pupil attracts RWU “close scrutiny”. Edis LJ concludes that the High Court had given undue benevolence to the governors’ reasoning and thus had failed to apply the required standard of review. 

In R (PZP) v HS Academy Trust [2026] EWHC 489 (Admin), the High Court continued to apply “close scrutiny” whilst upholding exclusion decisions. Swift J adopts the RWU conceptualisation of “close scrutiny” as appropriate to the joined cases. Nevertheless, the court found no material public law error nor any which justified relief in the decision-making processes of either review panel.

R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin)

This landmark case provides one of the very rare instances of the courts overturning a permanent exclusion decision, and the first such instance among the cases in this period. The case concerned a ten-year-old pupil with SEND who had brought a replica butterfly knife into school which he opened and passed to another pupil. The knife was used in an altercation with a third pupil, but no serious injuries were suffered.

As with previous cases, the court adopted RWU “close scrutiny” in examining the governors’ disciplinary panel (‘GDP’) decision letter, though the court went further and deemed the decision unlawful.

Firstly, the court found that the GDP had inadequately assessed proportionality in the case. It had merely stated in its decision letter and in the deliberation note that the statutory threshold was met without offering any contemporaneous reasons. It was held that the GDP must provide such reasons to demonstrate that it has made its own careful assessment as to whether the statutory threshold has been crossed. This assessment involves proper consideration of proportionality, specifically: the likely harm to the pupil from being unable to return; the nature and likelihood of harm arising to the pupil or to other members of the school community if the pupil were to return; and whether a lesser measure would sufficiently protect against that harm.

Secondly, the court found that the GDP had not provided adequate reasons to justify their decision. The importance of giving reasons to allow proper challenge and to provide families with confidence of fair treatment was emphasised, especially for pupils from minority backgrounds.

Importantly, the court provided guidance on the role of IRPs in examining GDP decisions. The court stated that an IRP must apply the same principles as those applied by the High Court in judicial review claims and should quash a GDP decision where the High Court would have done so. This suggests that IRPs must apply RWU “close scrutiny” (with reduced benevolence and heightened reluctance to accept retrospective reasons) whenever they approach a GDP decision.

Analysis of the Developing Trend

The case law from 2024 to 2026 demonstrates a trend in judicial approaches to permanent exclusion decisions characterised by an intensified standard of scrutiny.

The split judgment in SAG demonstrates the varied approaches to and interpretations of RWU “close scrutiny”. This exposes the tension between balancing proper judicial scrutiny of decisions with significant impacts, and proper deference to lay decision makers.

The trajectory has culminated in the case of HVF where a permanent exclusion decision was examined under the lens of RWU “close scrutiny”, with the court going the extra step further to quash permanent exclusion. Time will tell if this case truly signals a turning point in judicial willingness to overturn exclusions, or whether it will remain an anomaly in a trend of intensified scrutiny but limited interference.

A call has recently been launched for evidence on proposed school exclusion reforms outlined in the Every child achieving and thriving white paper, with practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders to respond by 19 November 2026. The reforms relate to internal suspension, reintegration following suspension, and schoolwork provision in the first 5 days of suspension and permanent exclusion.  

Raoul Lee, Paralegal at SV Law.

SV Law were involved in the R(CR) and R(CM) decisions mentioned above.

On 10 November 2026, SV Law is hosting a Training Day covering Admissions appeals in the morning and Exclusions appeals in the afternoon for LA clerks and Panel members.  Click here to find out more and sign up.