MT v Governing Body of a School (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS) [2026] UKUT 42 (AAC) (27 January 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed MT’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal of disability discrimination claims brought on behalf of her son, C, concerning the school’s decision to move him from one site to another. It set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for multiple errors of law and remitted all claims for rehearing by a fresh tribunal.

Key points

• Parties: MT v Governing Body of a School; claims were brought under sections 15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 for C, MT’s son.
• Holding: appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside in full; all claims remitted to a fresh First-tier Tribunal.
• Late evidence: the Upper Tribunal said the FTT had broadly applied the correct principles in refusing late evidence, but had to consider the overriding objective and Denton factors.
• Withheld medical evidence: the FTT erred by not addressing rule 14 procedures and Articles 6 and 8 ECHR before dealing with medical evidence MT would share only with the tribunal.
• Medical evidence and reasoning: the FTT failed to take account of or adequately explain rejection of relevant medical evidence affecting the section 15 claim.
• Scope of claims: the FTT wrongly treated the Equality Act issues as outside its jurisdiction where they overlapped with Children and Families Act 2014 / EHC Plan issues, and mischaracterised the reasonable-adjustments claim about additional support staff.

Why it matters

The case is a procedural and jurisdictional reminder for education-disability litigation, not a sanctions or export-control decision. Its significance for sovereign-risk and national-security audiences is indirect: it shows how tribunals must handle sensitive medical material, anonymity, and closed disclosure issues when rights-based claims intersect with public-service decision-making.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, schools and public bodies should expect tribunals to scrutinize late evidence, withheld medical records, and the framing of overlapping Equality Act and EHC Plan issues more carefully. Parties should plead the full substance of reasonable-adjustments claims, address rule 14 confidentiality questions expressly, and be prepared for rehearing before a completely fresh tribunal if procedural fairness is compromised.