When school discipline meets disability

One recurring feature of SEND and disability discrimination work is that behaviour is sometimes treated as if it sits in a separate box from disability.

A child struggles. The school responds with sanctions. Detentions follow. Then exclusions. Somewhere in the middle, an important question can be missed: was the child being sanctioned for behaviour that the school should first have considered through the lens of disability and reasonable adjustment?

That is why the Upper Tribunal’s decision in UW v Cheam Academies Network (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS) [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC) deserves attention.

The case concerned a child with diagnoses of autism and ADHD. The facts included 41 detentions, a series of fixed-term exclusions, and then permanent exclusion (para 7). At an earlier stage, the First-tier Tribunal took the view that a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments could not be brought in relation to the school’s behaviour policy. In effect, the parent was told that this part of the case fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (paras 8–11).

In the Upper Tribunal, UT Judge Stout held that this approach was wrong.

UT Judge Stout held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 can apply to the operation and application of a school’s behaviour policy, including sanctions and exclusions (paras 98–99).

The judgment also explains that exclusion is, in substance, a decision not to provide education and to deny access to the benefit, facility or service of attending school. On that basis, the duty can extend not only to the policy and process, but also to the act of exclusion itself (paras 98–99).

There is also an important procedural point. The Upper Tribunal made clear that the First-tier Tribunal does not have a free-standing power simply to “not admit” a claim on jurisdictional grounds. If jurisdiction is absent, the correct course is strike out under rule 8(3) (paras 47–49, 53).

The outcome was more limited. The appeal succeeded on the legal point, but that was not enough to overturn the decision under appeal. The error was held not to be material, so the decision of 15 April 2025 was not set aside (paras 2–4, 54, 100–102). An earlier issue concerning permanent exclusion had already been dealt with by District Tribunal Judge Sean Bradley.

Sean Kennedy is a Director and Co-Founder at Talem Law.

Neutral summary for information only; not legal advice.