The Upper Tribunal has confirmed that a school’s duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 extends to its behaviour policy, including the sanctions and exclusions applied under it, correcting an earlier First-tier Tribunal finding that this fell outside its jurisdiction.
Facts
The case concerned a child with diagnoses of autism and ADHD who received 41 detentions, a series of fixed-term exclusions, and was then permanently excluded. At first instance, the First-tier Tribunal held that a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments could not be brought in relation to the school’s behaviour policy itself, treating that part of the claim as falling outside its jurisdiction.
Decision
UT Judge Stout held that this approach was wrong. 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 the sanctions and exclusions imposed under it. The judgment goes further: exclusion is, in substance, a decision not to provide education and a denial of access to the benefit of attending school, so the reasonable adjustments duty can extend not only to the policy and process but to the act of exclusion itself.
The Upper Tribunal also clarified a procedural point of wider application: the First-tier Tribunal has no free-standing power to simply decline to admit a claim on jurisdictional grounds. Where jurisdiction is genuinely absent, the correct mechanism is strike out under rule 8(3), not informal non-admission.
On the specific facts, the appeal succeeded on the legal point but the underlying decision was not overturned, the Upper Tribunal finding the First-tier Tribunal’s earlier error was not material to the outcome.
Practical significance
This case matters for any family where a child’s behaviour, and the school’s response to it, is connected to an unrecognised or unmet need. A school cannot treat its behaviour policy, or a decision to exclude, as immune from the reasonable adjustments duty simply because it is framed as a disciplinary matter rather than a SEND one. Where detentions, fixed-term exclusions, or permanent exclusion follow a pattern connected to disability, this judgment supports bringing that behaviour policy itself within the scope of a discrimination claim, not only the individual exclusion decisions.
Source
Full decision: UW v Cheam Academies Network (SEN) [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC), Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber.
Keerat Solicitor acts exclusively for parents and young people in disability discrimination claims and exclusion appeals across England. To discuss a specific case, get in touch.