Arratoon, R (on the application of) v Office of the Independent Adjudicatior for Higher Education & Anor

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator has substantial discretion in deciding how to investigate and determine a student complaint. Its task is defined by the substance of the complaint, viewed pragmatically rather than as formal pleadings. It may consider whether a higher education institution followed its regulations and procedures, but the extent of that investigation is discretionary.

Judicial review does not permit the court to substitute its view where the adjudicator’s inference falls within the range of reasonable conclusions. An OIA determination should be read with a degree of benevolence. The adjudicator is not required to make a recommendation on an issue or remedy which the complainant did not positively pursue.

The claimant challenged a determination by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator concerning his complaint about the University of Greenwich’s handling of an academic appeal relating to failed teaching placements. The OIA found that unclear information had created a limited legitimate expectation and recommended £75 compensation.

The claimant sought judicial review on the basis that the OIA had failed to investigate whether the university had completed its appeal procedure, had failed to recommend that the appeal be heard, and had given inadequate reasons. The court also considered the principles stated in R (Siborurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2007] EWCA Civ 1365.

1. Application dismissed. The OIA’s determination was not unlawful.

2. The OIA scheme operated within the statutory framework of Part 2 of the Higher Education Act 2004. The complaint had to be assessed by reference to its substance, rather than through an excessively legalistic analysis of its formulation. The OIA had discretion to decide how far to investigate compliance with the university’s regulations and procedures.

3. The principles identified in R (Siborurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2007] EWCA Civ 1365 supported recognising the OIA’s discretion, allowing appropriate deference to its expertise, and permitting it to investigate the underlying facts. Its decision should be read with a degree of benevolence.

4. The OIA was entitled to infer that the claimant did not wish to pursue an academic appeal hearing. The university had clearly stated that the hearing had not occurred and that the internal process remained incomplete. The claimant and his legally represented advisers nevertheless continued to maintain that the process had already been completed and did not advance an alternative request for a hearing.

5. The OIA was not legally required to recommend completion of the appeal process. The claimant’s requested relief was based on the asserted finality of the October 2004 letter and was incompatible with the alternative case that the appeal should be completed. The OIA’s attempt to address the matter further did not create a legal error.

6. The reference in the OIA’s determination to a decision of the Academic Appeals Committee was unfortunately expressed but did not invalidate the decision. Read in context, it reflected the claimant’s own case and the determination was sufficiently clear when read as a whole.

7. The dismissal of the judicial review claim did not determine or affect any obligations owed by the university under other legal principles or any private law remedies potentially available to the claimant. The claimant’s costs were subject to detailed assessment, with the usual protection applicable to a legally aided or publicly funded claimant.