A B v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others

The appellants, parents of two minor children enrolled at Pridwin Preparatory School, concluded standard-form parent contracts with the independent school. The contracts contained reciprocal termination clauses allowing either party to terminate on a full term’s notice, for any reason. Over an extended period, the father (with the mother’s support) engaged in repeated aggressive, abusive, and disruptive conduct towards school staff, officials, and other participants at school sporting events. Although the school could have terminated summarily for material breach, it instead invoked the notice-based termination clause, giving more than the required notice, citing the best interests of the children. The parents sought to review and set aside the termination, arguing that the Constitution and PAJA required the school to afford them a hearing, to act reasonably, and that the termination clause was contrary to public policy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, and the termination of the parent contracts was upheld.

The case clarifies the limits of the horizontal application of children’s rights in private contractual settings, particularly in independent school contexts. It affirms contractual autonomy, confirms that PAJA generally does not apply to private school contract terminations, and reinforces that section 28(2) of the Constitution does not create a general right to a hearing or override clear contractual termination provisions.