A (A Child)
The exclusion of a child from school on the basis of a criterion that had a disproportionate effect on lower socio-economic groups was not discriminatory under Article 14
Excluding a pupil from his school on suspicion of setting fire to a classroom did not breach his right to an education under Article 2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the exclusion was illegal within the provisions of domestic law as established by the Education Act 1996 and the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998. As this was not a breach in the terms of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, no award of damages flowed from the illegal act.
There was no discrete right to develop a personality under Article 8 which the state was guaranteed to protect in the field of education under Article 2 Protocol 1
The strict liability offence created by s.444(1) Education Act 1996 was compatible with Article 6(2) of the Convention.
The refusal by a school to allow a pupil to wear a jilbab at school did not interfere with her right to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9 of the Convention, nor did it deny her access to education in violation of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention.
The refusal by a local education authority of a loan to a mature student was not discriminatory under Article 14 in conjunction with the right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol
E.H. v Greece
Legislation governing admission to a profession engaged people's civil rights even though the judicial process governing this procedure involved public law
Eren v Turkey
A challenge under the right to education to the state's imposition of conditions of entry to university has been admitted for further consideration
Governers of X School v R(on the Application of G) (Claimant) & Y City Council and Secretary of State for Children and Schools and Families (Interveners) & Equality and Human Rights Commission (Interested Party)
Where an individual had a civil right being determined in one set of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6, he would be able to claim protection under that provision in any other proceeding involving him if the outcome of that other would have a substantial effect on the determination of that civil right.
The right to education was not absolute and could not be relied upon to buttress an immigration claim. A child's right to education whilst in the UK did not entail the right to remain
In the matter of an application by 'JR17' for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)  UKSC 27
The Supreme Court found that there was no breach of a pupil’s right to education, where he was unlawfully suspended from school but was provided with work to do and home tutoring.
K (A Child)
The religious conviction of a parent had to be given due weight when considering admission of a child to a particular school
K and S
The Convention added nothing material to the issue of lateness for school - that issue had been properly taken into account by an admission appeal panel when deciding to refuse places for children at their parents' school of choice.
Luton Borough Council & Nottingham City Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education  EWHC 217 (Admin)
The high court has ruled that the coalition government’s cancellation of Labour’s school building program in 6 areas was unlawful.
R (on the application of E) (Respondent) v (1) JFS Governing Body (2) Admissions Panel of JFS (Appellants) : R (on the application of E) (Respondent) v (1) JFS Governing Body (2) Admissions Panel of JFS (Appellants) & ORS (United Synagogue
 UKSC 15
A school for Orthodox Jews which tested applicants for matrilineal descent was acting on the basis of ethnic origin, meaning that their admission requirement constituted direct racial discrimination.
R (on the application of LG) (Appellant) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School (Respondent) & Secretary of State for the Department for Children, Schools and Families (Interested Party)  EWCA Civ 142
An exclusion hearing did not engage Article 6 of the Convention since there was no “civil right” to education recognized as such either by the Convention or by domestic law.
R and Others
Refusal by the local authority to provide free school transport for claimants who lived in the Leeds administrative area to attend Jewish schools in Manchester were not irrational nor did they engage or infringe the claimants' rights under Articles 8, 9, 14 or Article 2 of Protocol 1.
R(on the application of Sarika Watkins-Singh) v Aberdare Girls High School Governers (Defendant) and Rhondda Cynon Taf Unitory Authority
 EWHC 1865 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Silber J) July 29 2008
A school's decision to refuse to allow a Sikh pupil to wear a religious steel bangle constituted indirect discrimination on grounds of race under the Race Relations Act 1976 and on grounds of religion under the Equality Act 2006.
Sahin v Turkey
Banning Muslim headscarves in schools does not violate freedom of religion and could counter Islamic fundamentalism
SG v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College  EWHC 1452 (Admin)
School ban on "cornrows" discriminated against pupils on grounds of race
The legislative ban on corporal punishment in all schools was not incompatible with parental rights under the Convention. A belief in the efficacy of corporal punishment in schools did constitute a philosophical conviction for the purposes of Articles 9 or 2 Protocol 1 but Parliament was entitled to limit the manifestation of those beliefs in the interests of children.
The right to education under Article 2 Protocol 1 did not entail the obligation on local authorities to award educational grants indiscriminately