Edwin Coe litigators assist A Level students and sub postmasters with two judicial reviews

Edwin Coe’s public law practice, renowned for success in the Article 50 litigation and its subsequent work in the Proroguing action, goes from strength to strength with two judicial reviews being launched, one challenging the use of the algorithm to decide A Level results and the other to challenge the Post Office compensation scheme for sub postmasters who were cheated by the Post Office software. Edwin Coe has acted previously in the Article 50 application, the Proroguing application and the challenge to the electoral deal between the Government and the DUP.

The challenge to the A Level algorithm met with immediate success. The firm was acting for a student from a school with a challenging academic record who had a place at Bristol to do law. His predicted grades were reversed by the use of the applied algorithm and he lost his place. A letter before action was written following which the Government abandoned the algorithm and restored assessment undertaken by schools.

David Greene, Senior Partner, said “This severely affected our client who, was the first of his family going to University, had a place to read law at Bristol University. He lost that place as a result of the recalculation of his A Level results on the application of the Government’s algorithm. We wrote a letter before action in accordance with the pre-action protocol. It is a real pleasure that the Government has reversed its decision because, like thousands of others, the result gives the client the chance of getting back his place. The problem many face now, however, is the level of oversubscription at University. We remain hopeful that the client will secure his place. He’ll make a great lawyer.”

“We also issued proceedings on 14th August against the Post Office for judicial review of aspects of their compensation scheme for sub-postmasters established following a devastating judgment by the High Court in December on their treatment of sub-postmasters. Following that judgment the Post Office has set up a scheme to compensate those that were not party to the proceedings. That scheme has several flaws and is wholly inappropriate to establish the level of compensation due. We have issued on behalf of a former sub-postmaster whose life has been devastated by the utterly disgraceful conduct of the Post Office.”