2025 in review: three key cases for schools and colleges

As we step into 2026, we're taking the opportunity to review three recent cases that provide timely reminders for schools and colleges about their core duties of safeguarding, putting in place professional boundaries, and complying with statutory duties.

1. How should you safeguard children when they are on school trips? 

Mrs Drury, principal of an alternative provision school for pupils aged 13 to 16 years with behavioural or social needs, took 12 students on a ski trip to Switzerland - a trip that resulted in her referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency, which upheld several allegations against her. 

The panel found in Mrs Drury: professional conduct panel outcome that she failed to obtain written parental consent from all participating pupils, did not liaise sufficiently with the local authority, failed to ensure appropriate staff to pupil ratios or carry out sufficient risk assessments. She also did not take reasonable steps to minimise the risk of inappropriate behaviour by pupils, including:

• engaging in sexual activity
• possessing knives
• shoplifting
• drinking alcohol; and
• attending a nightclub without supervision.

The panel also found that she failed to disclose the seriousness of these incidents to the local authority and to the school's trustees. 

It concluded that these failings represented serious breaches of safeguarding responsibilities and a failure to act with integrity. She was found to have breached the Teachers' Standards, as well as obligations under Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel found her actions especially serious because she put her goal of giving the pupils a “trip of a lifetime” ahead of their safety. 

Her conduct was deemed to constitute unacceptable professional conduct and behaviour that may bring the profession into disrepute. 

The panel recommended that she be prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with a right to apply for review after five years. The Secretary of State accepted the panel's recommendation. 

Takeaways for schools and colleges

School trips can provide valuable learning experiences, but they also carry significant responsibilities. This case highlights the importance of thorough planning and putting in place strong safeguarding measures both before and during any trip. You must assess the suitability of the trip and identify potential risks. It's particularly important to have in place robust safeguarding protocols and clear procedures to follow if you wish to take students off site. 

Make sure that you document everything, including all risk assessments and safety measures.  

2. What training should you provide to teachers about inappropriate teacher/pupil relationships?

In another Teaching Regulation Agency case, Miss Lanning, a performing arts and music teacher, admitted having an appropriate relationship with a pupil. This included sharing her personal contact details, communicating via social media and phone outside school hours, sending naked images of herself, giving gifts, and expressing romantic feelings towards the pupil. 

The panel found that Miss Lanning had breached the Teachers' Standards and obligations under Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. She developed feelings for a pupil over whom she held a position of trust and authority and acted on those feelings by sending sexually explicit images. Her behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute. 

The Secretary of State agreed with the panel's recommendation that she be prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with no right to apply for restoration.

Takeaways for schools and colleges

Many cases before the Teaching Regulation Agency's professional conduct panel involve allegations of sexual misconduct. Teachers should already know that they hold positions of trust and commit a criminal offence if they engage in sexual activity with a pupil under the age of 18. 

But they may be unclear about less obvious boundaries such as giving children their personal phone number etc. Paragraph 436 of Keeping Children Safe in Education requires schools to ensure, among other obligations, that staff are clear about what constitutes appropriate behaviour and can distinguish between expected and appropriate behaviour from inappropriate, problematic or concerning behaviour. We recommend that you deliver regular training which includes scenarios including online communication and social media contact. 

Act promptly if allegations are raised. It may be appropriate to suspend the employee to allow a fair and thorough investigation to take place. 

3. Who is ultimately responsible for delivering EHCP provision? 

In JSH (by his father and litigation friend RRB) v Westmorland and Furness Council, JSH, a 17-year-old with profound autism, severe learning difficulties, communication delay, and sensory processing disorder, attended a special school until his placement was terminated in April 2024 due to ongoing challenges in managing his needs and staffing constraints. 

Despite exploring alternative placements, none were secured for the start of the September 2024 term, leaving JSH without any educational provision. His father argued that this failure to deliver the special educational provision (SEP) specified in section F of his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) breached the local authority's absolute statutory duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. 

The High Court held that the local authority had been on notice since April 2024 of the need to make alternative provision but failed to act with sufficient urgency. This amounted to a breach of its statutory duty. 

To ensure compliance and remedy the breach promptly, the court issued a mandatory order requiring the local authority to make the necessary provision within five weeks of the judgment. 

Takeaways for schools and colleges

Local authorities often tell schools that they are responsible for delivering provision in the EHCP, even when funding is insufficient. This case makes clear that the ultimate duty lies with the local authority. 

Local authorities may also claim provision cannot be delivered due to issues such as shortages of certain professionals. However, if a tribunal orders provision, the SEND Regulations allow only five weeks for the authority to finalise the plan and put provision in place. Where provision is included in a new EHCP or added following an annual review, the local authority should similarly have this in place by the time the plan is finalised. 

While the right to legally challenge the local authority is usually the child's, schools and colleges can rely on this case to underline the strength of the legal obligation on local authorities to meet the needs of children with EHCPs.

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.