R v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page (Page, Ex parte, R v Lord President of the Privy Council, Ex parte Page)

A university visitor has exclusive authority to determine the foundation’s domestic law. A decision made within that jurisdiction cannot be quashed merely for an error of fact or law. The visitor is the sole judge of that special body of law, so such an error does not render the decision ultra vires.

Judicial review remains available where the visitor exceeds the jurisdiction conferred, abuses the visitorial powers or breaches natural justice. Outside this exceptional jurisdiction, any relevant error of law affecting the decision of an administrative tribunal or inferior court ordinarily makes the decision reviewable.

A university lecturer was dismissed for redundancy on three months’ notice. He contended that section 34 of the University’s Statutes permitted his removal only for good cause. His wrongful dismissal action was struck out because the dispute belonged to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visitor. Acting on judicial advice, the Visitor held that the dismissal was valid.

The Divisional Court held that the Visitor’s decision was reviewable and quashed it for error of law. The Court of Appeal upheld the availability of judicial review but held that the Visitor had construed the Statutes correctly. The lecturer appealed on construction. The University and the Visitor cross-appealed on jurisdiction. The principal issue was whether certiorari could correct an error of law made by a visitor within the visitor’s jurisdiction.

1. Disposition. The House dismissed the lecturer’s appeal and, by a majority, allowed the University’s and Visitor’s cross-appeals. The Court of Appeal’s order was affirmed, save as to costs. Lord Keith, Lord Griffiths and Lord Browne-Wilkinson formed the majority on jurisdiction. Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn dissented on that issue but agreed that the Visitor’s construction was correct.
2. General rule for errors of law. Lord Browne-Wilkinson accepted that, following Anisminic and O’Reilly v Mackman, any relevant error of law by an administrative tribunal or inferior court will ordinarily make its decision reviewable. The error must arise in the actual making of the decision and affect the decision itself. An unrelated mistake at an earlier stage is insufficient.
3. Exceptional position of visitors. Per Lord Browne-Wilkinson, with Lord Keith and Lord Griffiths agreeing, the general rule does not govern a visitor’s determination of a foundation’s domestic law. For centuries the common law had recognised the visitor as the sole judge of that special law. Where the visitor possesses jurisdiction in the narrow sense, a supposed error in interpreting that law cannot render the decision ultra vires. The courts may neither substitute their construction nor treat the domestic law as part of the general law of the land.
4. Permitted supervision. The majority held that judicial review remains available where the visitor acts outside the jurisdiction conferred, abuses the visitorial powers or breaches natural justice. Lord Griffiths explained that his reference in Thomas v University of Bradford to an abuse of powers meant misbehaviour incompatible with the judicial role, not a mere error of law.
5. Construction. Lord Griffiths considered the Visitor’s decision correct. Lord Slynn, with Lord Mustill agreeing, held that the contractual right to terminate on three months’ notice remained effective. Section 35 fixed a compulsory retirement age but did not guarantee tenure until that age. Section 34(3) expressly preserved the terms of appointment.
6. Dissent on jurisdiction. Lord Slynn, with Lord Mustill agreeing, considered that once certiorari was available against a visitor, it should extend to all established grounds of review, including error of law. They nevertheless dismissed the lecturer’s appeal because no error had been shown.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the lecturer’s appeal and allowed the University’s and Visitor’s cross-appeals. The Court of Appeal’s order was affirmed, save as to costs.
2. Court of Appeal: Upheld the Divisional Court’s conclusion that the Visitor’s decision was judicially reviewable, but reversed its construction of the University Statutes and held that the Visitor’s construction was correct.
3. Divisional Court: Held that it could review the Visitor’s decision, found the Visitor’s construction erroneous and quashed the decision. It declared that the University lacked power under its Statutes to dismiss the lecturer for redundancy.
4. Visitor: Acting on judicial advice, dismissed the lecturer’s petition and held that the dismissal was valid under the University Statutes.
5. Queen’s Bench Division: Struck out the lecturer’s wrongful dismissal action because the dispute fell within the Visitor’s exclusive jurisdiction.