On 30 January 2026, the Administrative Court handed down judgment in R (CHO) v Lonsdale School, Hertfordshire County Council and Secretary of State for Education [2026] EWHC 166 (Admin).

In May 2025, the school decided to close at 1.30pm on Fridays for the Autumn Term of 2025 (“the Decision”). The Decision followed two earlier decisions to close at this time on Fridays for the Spring and Summer Terms of 2025. In August 2025, the claimant applied for permission to judicially review the decision. He argued that: (i) the Local Authority had only authorised reduced hours at schools serving exclusively disabled children (and not at mainstream schools), and therefore engaged in direct or indirect disability discrimination; (ii) the school and Local Authority breached the Secretary of State for Education’s non-statutory guidance on the length of the school week without good reason, and / or took into account the legally immaterial consideration of cutting costs; (iii) if the guidance did permit reductions in hours for the purpose of cutting costs in special schools but not in mainstream schools, then the guidance itself was discriminatory; and (iv) the school’s decision breached the requirement under the guidance and / or the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999 to provide enough education of a sufficient quality.

The court dismissed the claim on all grounds. As a preliminary point, it found that the Decision was not academic in light of the school’s recent return to ordinary school hours; the claimant still had an interest in obtaining declaratory relief. On the substantive issues, the court first concluded that, under the Education Act 2002, the Decision was for the school to make, not the Local Authority, and that the decision was in fact made by the school with advice and guidance from the Local Authority. Secondly, the Decision was not made in order to cut costs but to deal with exceptional staffing challenges. It followed that the Decision did not amount to direct or indirect disability discrimination, nor was there any breach of the non-statutory guidance on the length of the school week. The non-statutory guidance itself was not discriminatory, nor was the school’s decision in breach of the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999.

David Lawson acted for the First Defendant (instructed by Wendy Li and Cleopatra-Louise Coleman of Hertfordshire County Council Legal Services Department), while Anna Tkaczynska and Jake Rylatt acted for the Second Defendant (instructed by Saul Gavin of Hertfordshire County Council Legal Services Department). Please click here to read the full judgment of the court.