Matin v University College London

A student’s unequivocal decision to withdraw from a course is not invalid merely because the institution fails to complete its prescribed withdrawal form, where the form evidences rather than constitutes the withdrawal. Procedural fairness depends on context and may require disclosure of the gist of an adverse case, but no unfairness arises where undisclosed material is not relied upon. A decision of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is not binding on the court and does not inevitably cure earlier illegality or unfairness, although the court should take it into account and be slow to undermine an adequately reasoned decision. The claim also failed under the Convention because withdrawal from one course did not exclude the claimant from tertiary education generally.

The claimant had enrolled on the defendant university’s medical degree course. After repeatedly confirming his wish to withdraw, he sought to reverse that decision. The university declined to reinstate him, and its grievance procedure found no case to answer. The claimant challenged the withdrawal and grievance decisions by judicial review, alleging procedural invalidity, unfairness, irrationality, failure to consider material matters, and breaches of Convention rights.

The proceedings were initially stayed while the claimant complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The OIA rejected the complaint. The central issues were whether the failure to complete the university’s withdrawal form invalidated the withdrawal, whether the university acted unfairly or irrationally, whether the OIA decision affected the court’s jurisdiction, and whether the Convention rights relied upon had been infringed.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had unequivocally communicated his decision to withdraw on 23 August and again in writing on 26 August. The withdrawal was not nullified by the failure to complete the university’s notification form. The form was a means of properly evidencing and administering an approved withdrawal, not a prerequisite to its legal effectiveness.
2. The university had acted fairly in dealing with the claimant’s vacillation. It warned him that withdrawal was irreversible, suggested interruption or transfer, arranged a meeting, allowed further time for reconsideration, and accepted his subsequent unequivocal confirmation. The decision was neither unreasonable nor irrational, and relevant considerations had not been ignored.
3. The fact that the university complied with its grievance procedure did not itself determine fairness. Fairness was assessed contextually in accordance with the principles in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. Disclosure of the response from the officer whose conduct was challenged was unnecessary because the decision-makers relied only on undisputed matters and the claimant’s own subsequent letter and documents.
4. The OIA decision was not binding and did not inevitably cure any illegality or unfairness. Under the principles identified in R (Maxwell) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 1236, following consideration of R (Sibororurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2007] EWCA Civ 1365, the court retained jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the OIA’s assessment was relevant and the court should be slow to undermine an adequately reasoned review.
5. There was no breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol, since the claimant had not been excluded from tertiary education throughout the United Kingdom. Article 6(1) was not engaged because the university’s decisions did not determine civil rights and obligations. The Article 14 allegation was also rejected.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision. The claim had previously been refused permission, stayed pending the claimant’s OIA complaint, and later proceeded after permission was granted.