Coalition cancellation of school building program was unlawful

11 February 2011 by

Luton Borough Council & Nottingham City Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin) (11 February 2011) – Read judgment

The high court has ruled that the coalition government’s cancellation of Labour’s school building program in 6 areas was unlawful. The full background to the ruling can be found here.

Michael Gove, the education secretary, announced in July that the £55bn scheme was to be reduced significantly, prompting five councils to challenge the decision by way of judicial review.

In 2003 the Department for Education launched a national programme called Building Schools for the Future (BSF). The programme aimed over a fifteen year period from 2005 – 2020 to rebuild or refurbish every secondary school in England, of which there are about 3,500. The estimated overall cost increased, and exceeded £50 billion by 2009. By July 2010, 181 schools had benefited from BSF funding of which 98 were new builds. A further 735 were, at more or less advanced stages, in the pipeline for refurbishment/rebuild.

On 5 July 2010 the newly appointed Secretary of State for Education in that government, Mr Michael Gove MP, made a statement in the House of Commons in which he announced that certain projects which were in the pipeline would go ahead; others would be stopped; and, in effect, that the BSF programme, which he criticised in trenchant terms as “a dysfunctional process”, would come to an end.

Mr Justice Holman ruled that the decision was unlawful on two grounds: namely, that the secretary of stated failed to consult the councils adequately in respect of the effect on individual schools, and that he failed to discharge his duties to carry out an equalities impact assessment. He did not address the substantive rationale of the decision. Perhaps that challenge will come if he makes the same decision again he reconsiders. The judge concluded:

121. In the result, I do not further examine or question the broad rationality of the Secretary of State’s decision. I am not persuaded that he decided and acted in breach of any substantive legitimate expectation of any of these claimants.

122. However I do consider and hold that, unlawfully and without justification, he failed to consult with any of these claimants as to the effect on their individual projects of his possible decision options. Partly as a result, but also as a discrete matter, he unlawfully failed to give due regard to the equality impacts of his proposed decision. He must now, after giving each of them a reasonable opportunity to make representations, reconsider his decision insofar as it affects the claimants and each of the projects in relation to which they have claimed, with an open mind, paying due regard to any representations they may make, and rigorously discharging his equality duties.

As to the effect of the decision, the secretary of state must now reconsider the decision and pay regard to the failings of his previous decision, including consulting the councils:

126. The extent of my decision is that the Secretary of State must, I stress must, reconsider the position of each of the claimants with an open mind and paying due regard to whatever representations they may respectively make. But provided he discharges that duty and his equality duties, the final decision on any given school or project still rests with him. He may save all, some, a few, or none. No one should gain false hope from this decision.

So the courts have dealt another blow to the government’s cuts agenda. The emerging theme is that the coalition may have been too keen to implement reforms quickly, and as a result failed to consider the decisions properly in some cases. It seems likely that more similar claims will follow, and will keep the courts busy in the next few months and perhaps years.

Related posts on the UK Human Rights Blog


  1. Adam Wagner says:

    Jack – but if the government has made a series of quick decisions without proper consultation or equality considerations, does that not suggest that there could be a number of other claims?

  2. Jack says:

    This is shoddy reporting.

    The Councils lost on both of their substantive grounds of challenge. The rejection of the rationality and legitimate expectation arguments are particularly significant. If the BSF decision isn’t susceptible to attack on these grounds it seems unlikely that there will be many other ‘cuts’ cases in which they can be succesfully invoked.

    Far from opening the floodgates for further claims, this judgment is a clear indication that the Admin Court recognises that its role in this area must be narrowly circumscribed.

    As the judgment explicitly recognises, the decision is for the SoS and his general approach is entirely rational.

    Difficult to construe this as anything other than a notable victory for the Government.

  3. Law Think says:

    What’s that? An ‘unelected’ judge telling an elected representative what he can and cannot do? Why am I sceptical that is likely to get any of the popular odium that we have seen over the last few days?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: