Echendu, R (on the application of) v School of Law University of Leeds

Judicial review does not lie to challenge the exercise of academic judgment, including decisions assessing examination work or imposing academic consequences for cheating. A student may pursue contractual remedies for breach of regulations governing examinations, but the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the university. Judicial review may also be refused where an adequate alternative remedy exists, including an internal academic appeal or a complaint under Part 2 of the Higher Education Act 2004. A claim directed at a later notification may be misconceived where that notification merely implements an earlier operative decision.

The claimant was an LL.M student at the University of Leeds. Following two findings of plagiarism, the university gave him a final opportunity to resit an examination. He failed to achieve the pass mark, and the Director of Student Education notified him that he would be excluded without a degree.

The claimant sought judicial review of the notification, alleging unfairness, bad faith, discrimination, bias, delay, breach of human rights and action outside the university’s powers. Permission had previously been refused, and the claimant renewed his application. The central issues were whether the challenged matters involved academic judgment, whether the claim was directed at the operative decision, and whether alternative remedies were available.

1. The renewed application for permission was dismissed. The court held that the claimant’s complaints were unarguable on the material before it.

2. The court had no jurisdiction in judicial review to determine questions of academic judgment. That included the assessment of the claimant’s examination work and the academic consequences of the findings of plagiarism. The court referred to Maloney v Anglo-European College of Chiropractors [2009] ELR 111; [2008] EWHC 2633, Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] 1 WLR 1988, and S v Chapman [2008] EWCA Civ 800. A student may bring a contractual claim for breach of regulations governing examinations, but academic judgment itself is not open to challenge by judicial review.

3. The court identified three earlier operative decisions: the first plagiarism decision, the second plagiarism decision, and the sentence imposed following the second finding. No appeal had been brought against them, and any judicial review challenge was out of time. The October 2011 letter was not the operative decision. It merely notified the claimant that the university was implementing the earlier decision after he had failed the permitted resit.

4. Where a complaint concerned unfair treatment or discrimination rather than academic judgment, the claimant had an alternative remedy under Part 2 of the Higher Education Act 2004, by reference to the Office of the Adjudicator for Higher Education. The court referred to R (on the application of Koyama) v Registrar & Secretary University of Manchester [2007] EWHC 1868 (Admin). The existence of that alternative remedy was an additional reason not to entertain the application.

5. The court found no procedural unfairness. The university had acted fairly and had provided opportunities to appeal, including an academic appeal against the examination result. The application was dismissed without a costs order because no claim for costs had been made.

Permission to apply for judicial review had previously been refused by His Honour Judge Behrens on 15 March 2012. The claimant renewed the application before the High Court (Administrative Court), which dismissed it.