High Court rejects legal challenge to early closure of special school on Fridays

The governing body’s decision followed similar decisions for each of the two preceding terms.

In CHO, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of Lonsdale School & Ors [2026] EWHC 166 (Admin), Robert Palmer KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, concluded that the decision was one taken by the school, and not the local authority, and was taken by reason of “a staffing crisis which the school was at all times attempting to resolve”, rather than to cut costs.

The claimant in the case, “CHO”, attends Lonsdale School in Stevenage, Hertfordshire.

The first defendant was the governing body. The second defendant was the local authority responsible for the school, Hertfordshire County Council.

The third defendant was the Secretary of State for Education, who had published non-statutory guidance entitled “Length of the school week” in July 2023.

Introducing the case, Robert Palmer KC said that in May 2025, the school’s governing body decided to close the school at 1.30pm on Fridays for the Autumn Term of 2025. It had previously decided to close the school early in the Spring and Summer Terms of 2025, instead of at 3.00pm as had been the position.

The decision also followed the withdrawal by the governing body of a proposal initially made in April 2025 to close at 1.30pm on Fridays on a permanent basis.

Following consultation with parents, that proposal had been abandoned and replaced with the decision that the closure would be temporary only.

In August 2025, the claimant applied (by his mother and litigation friend, “CRL”) for permission to claim judicial review of the decision, on the following grounds:

• Ground 1: The local authority had authorised cutting costs by reducing hours only at schools that serve exclusively disabled children, including Lonsdale School, and not at schools that predominantly serve non-disabled children, i.e. mainstream schools. This was either direct or indirect disability discrimination which was not objectively justified, contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Ground 2: The decision sought to take advantage of an exception in the Guidance, which directs a minimum number of school hours for mainstream schools and an ambition that all schools will increase their hours. As an exception, it permits reduced hours in special schools for reasons that concern the disability related needs of the children in those schools. It could not be lawful for local authorities and schools to exploit this exception as a loophole that allows them to cut hours as a way of making costs savings only in schools that serve disabled children.
• Ground 3: In the alternative to Ground 2, if the guidance permits reductions in hours for the purpose of cutting costs in special schools but not in mainstream schools, then the Secretary of State’s Guidance itself was discriminatory and/or authorised discriminatory conduct contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Ground 4: By regulation 3 of the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999 (“the 1999 Regulations”), the school was obliged to offer at least 380 sessions of education a year and two sessions a day (ten sessions a week), where a “session” is a morning or afternoon of education. By failing to provide education after Friday lunchtime, the school was in breach of regulation 3.
• Ground 5: The guidance also directs that “all schools should deliver substantive high-quality morning and afternoon sessions in every school day”. The school was in breach of this clear requirement of the guidance.

Lonsdale School provides for children and young people aged from 3 to 18 years with physical and/or neurological impairments. It has 132 pupils on its roll.

The school is open from Monday to Friday. The school day starts each day at 8.45am when school opens, with morning registration at 8.45am - 9.00am. The first timetabled lesson starts at 9.00am.

Until the end of 2024, the school day finished at 3.30pm from Monday to Thursday, and at 3pm on Fridays.

Outlining the background to the school’s decision to restrict opening hours on Fridays for the Spring Term 2025, the judge noted that in mid-November 2024, it was reported to the School Development Board that the school had been told that a teacher was taking earlier than planned maternity leave, another teacher who had been appointed to start in January had now dropped out, and a third teacher had informed the school that they would be leaving.

In November 2024, the school sent a letter to all parents stating that it would temporarily close at 1:30pm every Friday for the 2025 Spring Term.

The letter explained the background of funding constraints on the school which meant that the staff had already been overstretched. However, its focus was on the temporary staffing challenges that the school was under, which were (at that stage) expected to last until Easter 2025.

In March 2025, the school wrote to parents to inform them of a decision to continue to run the shortened school days on Fridays during the Summer Term.

In April 2025, the school’s Governing Body met and agreed to consult parents on a proposal to change school hours to close at 1.30pm on Fridays on a permanent basis.

In May 2025, the achool wrote to parents to consult them over the proposal to permanently shorten the school day on Fridays. The letter reminded parents that decisions to date to shorten hours on Fridays had been forced on the school by staff resignations and recruitment gaps, and had been taken as a “last resort”.

Some parents, including CRL, strongly objected to the proposed changes, arguing in written letters that this would create a disparity of the approach applying to mainstream schools, where children could expect a morning and afternoon session five days a week regardless of any funding difficulties.

The headteacher and the chairman of the governors discussed the parental feedback and were inclined not to go ahead with the proposal to shorten Friday afternoons indefinitely.

The school subsequently wrote to parents to confirm that it had reconsidered its decision to permanently close on Friday afternoons in light of feedback from parents.

In June 2025 the school provided an update to parents and carers on the temporary amendment to its timetable. The school explained:

“Following our persistent recruitment efforts, we have now received teacher applications and will be conducting interviews soon, with the intention of welcoming a new teacher from January. Furthermore, staffing developments at the conclusion of the Autumn Term 2025 will enhance our overall teaching capacity. As a result, we are now in a position to confirm that the school will resume a full day of teaching on Fridays, with a 3.00pm finish reinstated from January 2026.”

The judge noted: “In the event, the school has indeed now returned to its normal 3pm finish on Fridays, as announced.”

Looking at the reasons for the school’s initial decision to shorten its school day on Fridays, Robert Palmer KC acknowledged that the decision “arose as a direct result of the unanticipated staffing challenges, and not from any need to cut funds”.

He said: “I do not find support for the Claimant’s essential claim that the Decision was caused by the need to cut costs. It is true that the School had been operating subject to financial constraints for some time, and had argued its case strongly with the Local Authority that extra funding was needed. Despite that, the School had continued to operate successfully, and would have continued to do so absent the unanticipated staffing crisis that arose following the half term of October 2024.

“While the Claimant argues that the problem would not have arisen so acutely had the School been able to employ additional staff from the outset, that is an unrealistic position to take: the School was under no obligation to duplicate staff requirements for this (unanticipated) eventuality, just in case it unexpectedly arose.”

The judge continued: “My findings that the Decision was one taken by the School (and not the Local Authority), and was taken by reason of a staffing crisis which the School was at all times attempting to resolve (and not simply to cut costs) removes the essential basis upon which the first three grounds of challenge are premised.”

Turning to the question of whether the claim was academic - as submitted by the defendants, in light of the fact that the school had returned to its normal Friday hours after the October 2025 half-term - the judge rejected this argument.

He said: “A claim will be academic in circumstances where there is no longer a lis to be decided which will directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties inter se.

“I do not accept the School’s submission that the issues in the present case have become academic by reason that with effect from 3 November 2025 (just two weeks before the hearing of this matter) the School had returned to its full timetable. The School did so while maintaining that it had acted wholly lawfully over the course of 2025 until then. The Claimant maintains that the reduction in school hours was unlawful. The Claimant wrote to the School on 10 October 2025 (after the news had been announced of the return to the full timetable after half-term) inviting it to accept that the Decision had been unlawful, to guarantee that it will not restrict the hours of schooling provided in future, even if similar circumstances arise, and to undertake that the School would take all necessary steps to deliver a full school week. The School has unsurprisingly declined to give any such confirmation, guarantee or undertaking. The Claimant remains concerned that the School continues to operate 'at the bone' and that such circumstances could re-occur with little warning. He continues to seek declaratory relief as to the unlawfulness of the School’s and the Local Authority’s past conduct, as well as just satisfaction in respect of the Human Rights Act claim under Ground 1.

“In my judgment, there therefore remains a lis to be decided which will directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. The claim is not academic.”

Turning to consider the individual grounds, the judge noted that ground 1 was founded upon the dual premises that:

i) the decision to shorten school hours on Friday afternoons during the Autumn Term 2025 was jointly made or authorised by the Local Authority; and

ii) the decision was made in order to cut costs.

The judge observed that once it is acknowledged that the local authority “did not make or authorise the Decision of which complaint is made”, the first premise falls away.

He continued: “Further, once it is acknowledged that the School’s Decision was not made to cut costs, the second premise also falls away.”

Ground 1 was rejected.

On Ground 2, the claimant alleged that in making the decision, both the school and the local authority departed from the guidance without taking it properly into account or providing clear reasons for doing so.

The guidance was addressed to (amongst others) the governing bodies in all maintained schools and to local authorities in England. Counsel for the claimant submitted that both the school and the local authority were therefore bound to take account of it, and should only exercise their discretion to depart from it for good reason.

The judge noted: “[Counsel for the claimant] submitted that the Decision was taken for the sole or primary purpose of resource efficiencies including cost cutting, but that the Guidance does not allow special schools to reduce hours to cut costs. The Guidance only exempted special schools from the otherwise applicable ‘expectation’ and replaced it with an ‘overall ambition’ that they provide a minimum of 32.5 hours, because of ’the varying needs of their pupil cohorts and the particular operational challenges they may face’.

“In my judgment, the short answer to this ground is once again that it is based upon a false premise: the Decision temporarily to reduce hours was not taken to cut costs, but to manage the safe delivery of education to the School’s pupils while attempts were made to recruit replacement staff and return to the previously established full timetable.

“[…] In the present case, the School focused on operational considerations, not financial ones. It was concerned that it could not provide appropriately staffed classes with suitably trained teachers, LSAs and other staff to ensure the safety of the pupils over the full length of its ordinary school week, until replacement teachers had been recruited. That is squarely an operational consideration which arises directly from the needs of the pupils. There is nothing in the Guidance which suggests that special schools cannot or should not have regard to such matters in deciding to temporarily adopt a shorter school week.

“There was therefore no departure from the Guidance by the School (still less the Local Authority), and no obligation to provide reasons for any such departure.”

Ground 2 was also rejected.

The third ground proceeded in the alternative to Ground 2.

It was submitted that if, contrary to the claimant’s primary case, the Secretary of State’s guidance does allow special schools to reduce hours to cut costs, then the guidance is itself unlawful insofar as it fails to prohibit special schools from offering a shorter week where the reason is to cut resources and costs.

The claimant contended that if the guidance is to be read in that way, it is itself discriminatory.

Considering this, the judge said: “In my judgment, there is no legal fault in this approach. For the reasons given, mainstream schools and special schools are not in an equivalent position. The fact that mainstream schools should generally be expected to deliver 32.5 hours within their budget does not mean that all special schools will be able to do so, not least where in light of the particular needs of its pupil cohort, the maintenance of staff to pupil ratios may need to be prioritised over a longer school week.

“For that reason, it is too crude a proposition to contend that to allow special schools to run a shorter school week for operational or financial reasons is to subject its disabled pupils to a detriment of any kind: the shorter school week may be directly in their interests and to their benefit. The Guidance provides flexibility for special schools to adjust to their own circumstances, and is not proscriptive as to how the balance between the length of the school week and other aspects of their provision should be struck.”

Ground 3 was also rejected.

Finally, turning to grounds 4 and 5 – that the school departed from requirements in the Guidance and was in breach of regulation 3(1) of the 1999 Regulations – the judge said: “In my judgment, the School’s Decision accords with regulation 3(1) and with the Guidance, for the following five reasons:

“First, I accept Ms Slarks’ submission that the two ‘sessions’ into which the school day must be divided must mean periods of time during which meaningful education is provided to the school’s pupils.

“Secondly, I also accept Mr Lawson’s submission on behalf of the School that a ‘session’ is not restricted to classroom teaching, and may include sport, craft or other activities which take place outside the classroom – all such activities may amount to the provision of meaningful education.

“Thirdly, in the case of special educational provision, the activities which may amount to the delivery of education are particularly broad: they may include any activity which is provided in order to further the objective of meeting the outcomes set out in pupils’ EHCPs and/or in assessing their progress towards that objective.

“Fourthly, the learning activities which are provided by the School during social interaction time include, on Mrs Thiele’s evidence, structured and varied learning activities for the School’s pupils which are linked to their ECHP targets and which are monitored accordingly.

“Fifthly, I accept that regulation 3(1) of the 1999 Regulations makes no provision that the sessions must be of any particular duration, or of equal length to each other.”

“For all of those reasons, the Friday afternoon provision at the School during the currency of the period of reduced hours was in my judgment consistent with regulation 3(1) of the 1999 Regulations, and consistent with the terms of the Guidance.”

Grounds 4 and 5 were also rejected, and the claim was therefore dismissed.

Lottie Winson