The King on the application of GH (a child, by her father and litigation friend, KL) and three others vs The Mayor of London

This case involved a judicial review of the decision by the Mayor of London to extend the Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) scheme for the academic year 2024-2025, while continuing to confine the scheme to state-funded primary schools.

TLDR:

• The Claimants sought judicial review of the Mayor's decision to limit the UFSM scheme to state-funded primary schools.
• The Claimants argued the decision was irrational and discriminatory against Charedi children attending independent schools.
• The High Court refused permission for judicial review, finding the Mayor's decision was within the range of reasonable decisions.

The Claimants, Charedi children represented by their father and litigation friend, KL, challenged the Mayor of London's decision to extend the UFSM scheme for the academic year 2024-2025 but to limit it to state-funded primary schools. The Charedi community, primarily located in Stamford Hill, Hackney, argued that their children, who largely attend independent schools, were unfairly excluded from the scheme.

On 20 February 2023, the Mayor announced the UFSM scheme as a £130M emergency measure to help primary school children with the cost-of-living crisis. The scheme was limited to state-funded primary schools, excluding independent schools. The Claimants argued that this exclusion was irrational and discriminatory, given the financial hardship experienced by the Charedi community.

The High Court considered extensive submissions and evidence, including the interim Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) and supplementary analysis on London independent schools. The court noted that the Mayor had received representations from the Charedi community and had considered the feasibility of extending the scheme to independent schools but ultimately decided against it due to limited funding and administrative complexities.

The Claimants contended that the Mayor failed to take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with relevant information and did not adequately consult the Charedi community. They proposed a method for targeting the UFSM scheme at low-fee independent schools, which the Mayor deemed operationally unviable.

The court found that the Mayor had acted within his discretion, taking into account the statutory scheme, the extent of available funds, and the need for efficient administration. The decision to limit the UFSM scheme to state-funded schools was consistent with national policy and aimed at reaching the most children in need quickly.

The Claimants also argued that the decision resulted in indirect discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR and s.19 of the Equality Act 2010. The court held that even if the decision disproportionately affected Charedi children, it pursued a legitimate aim by proportionate means, given the finite funding and policy considerations.

Legal representatives: Stephen Broach KC and Alice Irving (instructed by Rook Irwin Sweeney Llp LLP) for the Claimants, Dan Squires KC and Katy Sheridan (instructed by Transport for London Legal) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Mr Justice MacDonald

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1305 (Admin)