I am not very sure of the answers to your questions. However, a fair number of Grammar school admission policies make it clear that places will be left unfilled if insufficient numbers of candidates reach the entry requirements. There is no requirement for them to admit more people simply because the places are available. If there are more children meet the entry requirement than are places available then the oversubscription criteria should be laid down and be clear. Appeals should still be a 2 stage process, therefore, with the applicant first having to prove that they did reach, or would have reached, if it were not for extenuating circumstances of some kind, the required standard for that year (even though that required standard may vary from year to year). Only if that first stage is passed should the balancing of prejudice to school and child take place - of course if the school is undersubcribed with successful applicants the second stage is not needed as no extra space is required.
Have no experience at all of judicial review but clearly if the school have not followed the correct procedures there must be a logical next step. Do wish you all the best.
Thank you for that. The legislation is clear in that the schools can leave places unfilled, but that does not apply to the IAP. The IAP must be able to allow appeals which would take the schools over their PAL, otherwise, where the selection criterion is the ranked position, as in this case, an appeal would be a pointless exercise unless a good many offers of a place were rejected.
We know that places were available, but we don't know how many (yet).