Admissions experts - can you help?

[Flabbergastric]

Can anyone help with this thread in Legal Matters. I would like to find examples of judgments where school catchment areas that coincide with borough boundaries have been unsuccessfully challenged, in order to build up a picture of what is regarded as "reasonable" and what isn't (with respect to the Greenwich Judgement).

It would probably help to find examples where the boundaries have been successfully challenged too.

I have searched some legal databases I have access to, these will mainly be High Court and above so won't include the first instance cases. I note that many school admission cases are to do with special needs or faith. Some are on specific topics like the admissions authority mis-applying the Admissions Code, in one instance they used the 2007 code rather than the 2009 code for example. Others uphold parental choice as the LA failed to note schools in their planning document when approving a large housing development etc. All quite fascinating. I haven't been through them all and my quick break is over so I will look again and if I find anything will post here, the case below isn't a match to your query but was the closest I found in my quick look:

R. (on the application of Drayton Manor High School) v Schools Adjudicator
[2008] EWHC 3119 (Admin)
Link: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/3119.html
Summary: A schools adjudicator's determination would be quashed where he had found that one of a school's admissions criteria to deal with over-subscription disadvantaged children from poorer areas while benefiting those from wealthier areas, but he had failed to consider the school's point that his substituted criterion would disadvantage another group of children.
Abstract: The claimant school (D) applied for judicial review of the defendant schools adjudicator's decision that one of its admissions criteria to deal with over-subscription should be changed.
D had three criteria, of which the least important was the school's proximity to the child's home, with children for whom it was the closest high school in the borough being given priority. The local authority objected that the criterion made it harder for nearby children from poorer backgrounds to be admitted. The adjudicator found that the combination of the two factors in the criterion had the effect of extending D's catchment area in one direction to take in more affluent areas, while reducing it in another direction where less prosperous families resided. He concluded that although the criterion did not encourage social segregation, it failed to achieve a balanced intake and was therefore not compliant with the secretary of state's code of practice for school admissions. He decided that priority should just depend on the single factor of a child's proximity to D, and not on the second factor of his relative proximity to other high schools.