Bangert, R (on the application of) v South Bank University

On judicial review of a university disciplinary decision, an alleged failure to investigate an improper motive will not invalidate the decision where the allegation is unsupported and could not rationally have affected the outcome. Procedural fairness does not require separate warning of material that the claimant already knows, has received, or has had a proper opportunity to answer. A decision may stand where an independently sufficient finding, supported by overwhelming evidence, inevitably justifies the penalty. The court may therefore dismiss the claim despite reservations about some subsidiary findings where the remaining findings are determinative.

The claimant, a research student and former part-time lecturer, challenged the university’s decision to terminate his studentship and exclude him. The decision followed an investigation into alleged obstruction of university activities, failure to cooperate with supervision, and misuse of university computer facilities and a website.

Permission for judicial review was granted on limited grounds. The claimant alleged that the disciplinary process was tainted by Professor Bridge’s improper and retaliatory motive, and that he had been denied a fair opportunity to respond to minutes of research meetings. The central issues were whether those matters rendered the investigation unlawful or irrational.

1. Outcome. The claim was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment, with enforcement restrictions concerning publicly funded costs.
2. Alleged improper motive. The claimant failed to establish that Professor Bridge had acted maliciously or dishonestly because of the claimant’s grievances. The alleged remarks relied on either were true or had a proper evidential basis, or could not rationally explain the commencement of disciplinary proceedings. The court held that, whether or not Dr Farwell had expressly considered the issue, the only rational conclusion was that the alleged motive could not have operated in the manner asserted (paras [192]–[216]).
3. Procedural fairness. There was no unfairness in Dr Farwell’s consideration of the research-meeting minutes. The claimant knew that meetings were being minuted, had seen or received the relevant minutes, possessed covert recordings, and was given copies during the disciplinary interview. He had a sufficient opportunity to challenge their accuracy (paras [149]–[156]).
4. Independent basis for the decision. The finding that the claimant had deliberately obstructed his supervisory arrangements was overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and did not depend on Professor Bridge’s evidence. The website allegations were also proved, although the court noted that those allegations alone would probably not have justified exclusion. The finding on the supervisory allegation inevitably justified termination of the studentship and exclusion (paras [215], [219]).
5. The court noted that some doubts arose concerning the treatment of the first, and possibly the second, allegation, but those doubts did not affect the result because allegation 3 was independently dispositive.