22 Oct Court of Appeal hands down judgment in Church of England School oversubscription criteria case
On 22 October 2026 the Court of Appeal handed down its judgement in the case of R (CKT & DGT) v Twyford Church of England Academy Trust and others. CKT was the mother of three children including DGT. All were regular attendees at an Eritrean Orthodox Church. They lived within sight of the school, which was their local Christian secondary, which CKT wished her children to attend alongside their peers from their local Church of England (“CofE”) primary school.
Gold Jennings acted for the Appellants, instructing Raj Desai and Aidan Wills of Matrix Chambers.
The appeal concerned the application of the prohibition on indirect race discrimination in the Equality Act 2010 (“EA”) and the public sector equality duty in s.149 of the EA to the allocation of Foundation (Christian) places in CofE schools and in one such very popular and heavily oversubscribed secondary school in particular.
150 of the 190 places at the school were Foundation places and were reserved for Christian children. These places were heavily oversubscribed, and in most years all (or virtually) all places went to CofE adherents, and none (or virtually none) to Christians of other denominations.
Faith schools’ admissions policies are exempted from the prohibition on religious or belief-related discrimination in the Equality Act. The Court rejected the submission of the Secretary of State, intervening in the case, that the Equality Act also exempts faith schools from the prohibitions on race discrimination which would have had far-reaching implications.
The Appellants argued that the criteria for Foundation places put non-white and/or non-English heritage children at a disadvantage in obtaining those places and was unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of race. The Trust argued that there was no such group-based racial disadvantage and that the criteria were in any event objectively justified so as to be lawful.
The Court of Appeal found that, as evidence showed that non-white and/or non-English heritage children were disproportionately likely to attend non-CofE churches (as compared to white and/ or English heritage children) the oversubscription criteria did significantly disadvantage non-white and/or non-English heritage applicants in accessing this very popular and over-subscribed school.
Nevertheless, on the particular facts of this case, the court held that the indirectly discriminatory effect of the school’s oversubscription criteria had been justified by the evidence before the Court. It did so in particular by reference to the fact that Twyford was one of four Trust schools in the area, the other schools did not operate faith-based oversubscription criteria, and that the school played a particular role within this group of schools. While it found that the public sector equality duty applied, it also dismissed arguments that it had not been complied with on the facts of the case.
While this appeal ultimately did not succeed on the facts, it does make clear that CofE schools must properly consider the race equality implications of any faith-based over-subscription criteria that prioritise Anglicans over other Christians in light of the differing demographics of those who attend different churches, including pursuant to the public sector equality duty. Any disparate racial effect may or may not be objectively justified depending on the proportionality of the approach adopted in the particular circumstances of the school in question.
Dan Rosenberg, solicitor for the Claimants said
“Our clients are obviously very disappointed with the outcome. The are pleased that the Judges recognised the disadvantage that they face because of their ethnicity. That was something that was denied by the school all the way to the Court of Appeal. They hope that the Church of England and all Church of England schools reflect on the Judgment and give greater thought to the effect of similar admissions criteria on devout Christians of other denominations in the future.”
Notes for editors
- There is an anonymity order and reporting restrictions preventing the identification of the Appellants in this matter.
- The Appellants will not be giving any interviews.