header-logo header-logo

07 January 2010
Issue: 7399 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Race relations—Discrimination—School admissions policy

R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of the Jews Free School and others (The United Synagogue intervening); R (on the application of E) v Office of The Schools Adjudicator and others (British Humanist Association intervening) [2009] UKSC 15; [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Dec)

Supreme Court, Lord Phillips P, Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke SCJJ, 16 December 2009

A requirement for a pupil to qualify for admission at a Jewish faith school that his mother has to be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, constitutes a test of ethnicity in breach of s 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976).

Dinah Rose QC and Helen Mountfield (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the father. Lord Pannick QC, Peter Oldham and Christopher McCrudden (instructed by Stone King Sewell LLP) for the school. Ben Jaffey (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the United Synagogue. David Wolfson QC, Sam Grodzinski and Aileen McColgan (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby) for the Board

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll