The case that could have derailed UCL’s controversial city academy project has been dismissed at the High Court. 

But opponents have vowed to continue their fight against the school, with the Anti-Academy alliance saying: “It was clear from the case that the Council and UCL conducted themselves in an extremely shoddy way.”

The case was lodged at the High Court by Leigh Day and Co on behalf of parents Juliet Prew and Deseline Djiayep.

The parent group argued that information about UCL’s bid was not made public and that UCL management bullied Camden councilors into supporting its bid to run the academy.

The parents also claimed that Camden council broke both UK and EU law by not allowing the contract for the city academy to be opened to tender.

Yet Justice Forbes ruled that Camden Councillors had not broken the law in not opening sponsorship of the academy up to competition.

Justice Forbes said: “Throughout the entire process, the councillors conscientiously considered the best way forward for education in Camden.”

He added: “There is simply no evidence that justifies the characterisation of the Council’s approach as “partisan” let alone “highly partisan”.”

There were two legal routes available to Camden Council, one which would have not required them to open the contract to competition. Forbes said: “It was entirely lawful for the council to decide which of those two routes it wished to go down.”

This defence was criticised by Camden NUT leader Kevin Courtney who said that the Council had “undermined the will of parliament – by using the undemocratic ‘preferred bidder route’”.

UCL Management welcomed the ruling, Vice Provost Michael Worton said: “We are very pleased by the clear judgment handed down. Our aim is, and always has been, to contribute to secondary education in Camden by sponsoring an Academy that will offer young people the best possible education .”

The schools secretary, Ed Balls, added: “I very much welcome the court’s ruling. We defended this case vigorously and the judge has vindicated our decision to do so.”

 But Camden residents and groups opposed to the Academy remain unconvinced that UCL would be the best sponsor of the academy.

Many are angry that interest from both the Church of England, which runs 147 schools in London, and the educational charity Absolute Return for Kids (Ark), which runs six, were ignored in favour of UCL – which runs none.

The National Union of Teachers has also raised concerns that the new £35 million building and links with a leading university will “cream off” the best pupils and teachers from nearby schools. Their representative stated: “We want UCL to share their expertise with all Camden schools and not just the chosen few in their school, which is situated on one of the most exclusive streets in London.

The Camden branch of the Campaign for State Education argues that as academies are governed by a funding agreement between the sponsor and the Government, they are not accountable to local communities.

The NUT told London Student: “We are consulting with our legal team about how to appeal.”

Students are also disappointed with the decision. UCL Russian studies student Sam Crews told London Student: “UCL really should consider its position on this venture, following the embarrassment and strained relations with the local community.”

Crews added: “Enthusiasm for the Academy is low. UCL should be working to benefit as many people as possible in the local community, especially the poor, not just a wealthy few in a prosperous part of London.”

He also fired a warning to UCL Management, hinting that the UCL student body will continue to try to scupper the project: “Students are imaginative and radical and I am sure we will find a way.”

One Response to “City academy case dismissed”