Chilab v King's College London

For a multi-year part-time course, the governing assessment regulations are ordinarily those in force when the student first enrols, rather than regulations introduced for the academic year in which examinations are taken. Where programme regulations prescribe a 50% pass mark for each written or oral examination and dissertation, and provide reassessment after failure of any element, they require the candidate to pass every element before the award is available. An additional requirement of an overall pass in each module remains effective. A core marking scheme stating minimum standards does not necessarily displace higher standards in individual programme regulations. Where enrolment is defined by completion and signature of an enrolment form, that definition governs.

The appellant enrolled on a two-year part-time MSc in nuclear medicine at King’s College London. He failed the general oral examination and was not awarded the degree. Following internal review, an appeal and an appeal to the Visitor, he brought proceedings for breach of contract and breach of a duty of care, claiming entitlement to the MSc or damages for loss of the chance to qualify.

After an eight-day liability trial, the Central London County Court dismissed the claim. The appeal concerned the applicable regulations, whether King’s College London had breached them, and appeals concerning an amendment order and a costs order.

Appeal dismissed. David Richards J gave the judgment, with Ward LJ and Hughes LJ agreeing. The dismissal of the claim on issues 1, 2 and 3 was upheld, and issue 4 did not arise.

1. The hierarchy of General Academic Regulations, Postgraduate Academic Regulations, General Regulations for Examinations and individual programme regulations showed that the printed Programme Regulations 1999/2000 governed the course. The PIF(C) document was an internal information form, not part of the regulations, and was rightly rejected as the applicable marking scheme (paras [13]-[19], [23]-[25]).
2. The student was bound by the regulations in force when he enrolled. For a two-year part-time course, that meant the regulations governing the course when he first enrolled, not the regulations published for the later academic year in which examinations were taken. Applying the defined meaning in Appendix 1 to the Academic Regulations, enrolment occurred when the appellant signed his enrolment form on 30 November 1999 (paras [28]-[40]).
3. In the absence of evidence that the published Programme Regulations had not been properly approved, the court was entitled to proceed on the basis that they had been duly adopted. The applicable regulations were therefore those for 1999/2000 (paras [41]-[44]).
4. Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the Programme Regulations 1999/2000 required a pass in each written examination, oral examination and dissertation. The reference to a student failing any element and receiving one further attempt would otherwise lack meaning. Paragraph 6.3 imposed the additional requirement of an overall pass in each module (paras [45]-[50]).
5. Even if the core marking scheme in Appendix 5 applied to the part-time students, its thresholds were minimum provisions. They did not prevent individual programme regulations from imposing higher standards. The equivalent 2000/2001 regulations would produce the same result because paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 were identical (paras [51]-[53]).
6. Having failed the general oral examination, the appellant was not entitled to the MSc and there was no breach of contract or tortious duty. The appeal concerning the amendment order was abandoned. The costs order was within the trial judge’s discretion; permission to appeal against it was refused (paras [54]-[58]).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2013] EWCA Civ 147. The appeal was dismissed on the substantive issues. The appeal concerning amendment of the defence was abandoned, and permission to appeal against the costs order was refused.
2. Central London County Court — Following an eight-day liability trial, HHJ Brian Knight QC dismissed the claim, holding that there had been no breach of the applicable regulations, contract or tortious duty.
3. Cardiff County Court — Proceedings were commenced there in August 2006 and were subsequently transferred to the Central London County Court.