Nash v Chelsea College Of Art And Design

In judicial review of an academic decision, reasons may be supplied after the decision where the court is satisfied that they genuinely represent the decision-maker’s reasons. This is particularly so where the decision does not involve jurisdiction or vires and did not require a detailed written document as the basis for decision-making. It is unnecessary for every committee member formally to subscribe to the reasons if the court is satisfied that they were the committee’s reasons. A later document may fill a deficiency in earlier reasons where the documents are consistent. The court should also recognise the distinct institutional context of an academic body and avoid treating the duty to give reasons as determinative of its power to decide.

The claimant challenged an assessment and the rejection of her complaint by the respondent college’s Academic Committee. An earlier committee decision had been quashed by Elias J because the chairman had wrongly controlled the material placed before the committee. The committee reconsidered the matter but sent the claimant reasons which did not adequately address her substantive objections. A later letter from the college’s head set out fuller reasons, approved by the committee chairman, and was accepted by Stanley Burnton J as accurately representing the committee’s reasons and as adequate.

On an application for permission to appeal, the claimant relied on further material concerning committee meetings and argued that the first-instance judge had been misled about the practical difficulties of obtaining committee approval. The central issue was whether the further material disclosed an arguable error of law or undermined the finding that the later letter represented the committee’s reasons.

1. Permission refused. Stanley Burnton J had made no error of law in accepting the later letter as the committee’s reasons and in finding those reasons adequate.
2. The court accepted the guidance in R v Westminster City Council, ex p Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302 concerning the circumstances in which reasons may properly be given ex post facto. The two letters were not inconsistent. The later letter filled a hiatus in the earlier reasons.
3. There was no issue of jurisdiction or vires. The decision was made by an academic body and was not one which could only effectively be taken on the basis of a detailed written document. It was therefore unnecessary for every member of the committee formally to subscribe to the reasons, provided the court was satisfied that they represented the committee’s reasons.
4. Lord Justice Buxton drew assistance from Northamptonshire County Council ex p D [1998] ED CR 14 and applied the relevant considerations to the facts. He also relied on the distinction, explained in R v Higher Education Funding Council ex p Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 242, between an academic body and a local authority. The requirement to give reasons did not determine the college’s ability to decide the matter.
5. The new material did not undermine the accepted evidence of the chairman or the judge’s findings. The court declined to decide the matter on the basis that the alleged error would have had only a marginal effect on the claimant’s final grade, although it acknowledged that public-law errors should ordinarily be corrected.

Order: permission to appeal refused. LSC Funding Certificate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the decision of Stanley Burnton J was refused.
• Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): Stanley Burnton J, on 20 July 2001, accepted the later letter as adequately stating the Academic Committee’s reasons.
• Earlier judicial review: Elias J quashed an earlier committee decision in May 2000 because the chairman had wrongly determined what material should go before the committee.