The government has been ordered to compensate a disabled pupil nearly £10,000 and ensure changes are made in how they are supported after a tribunal ruled the child had been discriminated against by their secondary school.

The Employment and Discrimination Tribunal awarded £9,750 in compensation this month after a four-day hearing in October led to a conclusion that the school failed to provide appropriate homework and assistive technology, and that the pupil missed a learning opportunity because of their disability.

The pupil and school cannot be identified.

Intimidation claim rejected

During the October hearing, the child’s mother alleged that teachers had been “actively hostile” towards her child and argued that the school had repeatedly failed to make reasonable adjustments.

The school, meanwhile, questioned her credibility, claiming that she was prone to exaggeration, while complaining about the volume of correspondence she had sent about her child.

However, the tribunal – chaired by Dr Hilary Westmacott – rejected suggestions that the mother had intimidated or bullied staff.

“While this is not a case against [the mother], there has been a lot of criticism of [her] to seek to undermine her credibility,” the panel said. “We do not find the allegations of intimidation, threatening or bullying to be justified.”

Laptops in boxes “not enough”

One of the key issues centred on assistive technology. While the school argued it had laptops available for all pupils, the tribunal found this alone was not enough.

“Simply having laptops available in boxes in each department is not enough,” it ruled, finding that the school had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the pupil could access the technology needed to support their learning.

The tribunal concluded that responsibility for this act of discrimination rested with the Minister for Education, acting on behalf of the school.

“Neither side is completely wrong or right”

Despite ruling in the claimant’s favour, the panel urged both sides to work more constructively in future.

“We hope it is helpful for the parties to see our view is that neither side is completely wrong or right on every occasion,” it said.

“For the benefit of C, [we hope they can] listen to and take on board each other’s views, work together and, when appropriate, agree a compromise on the best way to proceed.”

Having concluded that discrimination took place, the panel sat this month to consider the sum that should be paid, and what limits should be applied to the total.

Compensation limits tested

Last July, Jersey increased the maximum award for hurt and distress in discrimination cases from £5,000 to £30,000.

The claimant had argued for £47,500 in compensation, while the minister submitted that an award of between £500 and £1,000 would be appropriate.

In a judgment which could have wider implications for future discrimination claims, the tribunal ruled that Jersey’s substantially increased compensation limits can apply to cases involving acts that took place before the law changed in July 2025.

Although it found the school had discriminated against the pupil, the tribunal stressed there had been no deliberate campaign of discrimination as it delivered its £9,750 order.

A total of £6,000 was awarded for the distress caused by failing to provide assistive technology, £3,000 for failing to provide differentiated homework and £750 relating to a missed learning opportunity.

Explaining the rationale for the award, the tribunal panel said in their judgment that they believed school staff involved in the case had been “acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the claimant”, describing what happened as an “error of judgment” or “misjudgment”.

Improvements for the future

The tribunal also made a series of recommendations aimed at preventing similar problems.

It said an appropriate member of staff should meet the pupil this month to discuss whether they had been “worried or upset” by the lack of homework or assistive technology and, if appropriate, offer a verbal apology.

It also recommended that, for the remainder of the pupil’s time at the school, homework should be tailored to their ability in an accessible format, suitable assistive technology should be available during mainstream lessons, and the pupil should return to normal classes if bespoke activities are cancelled.