Wilson, R (on the application of) v The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education & Anor

Judicial review of an OIA decision is concerned with legality and rationality, not a rehearing of the underlying academic or factual dispute. The OIA has a broad discretion over its procedure and approach, and courts should respect its expertise. Its decisions and recommendations need adequate rational explanation, but they need not contain the detailed analysis expected in ordinary litigation. A compensation recommendation may be expressed as a rational rounded figure where the evidence does not permit mathematical precision. The court should intervene only where the OIA’s conclusion falls outside the range of reasonable conclusions open to it.

The claimant sought judicial review of an OIA decision concerning his part-time MSc course at the University of Hull. The OIA’s original decision was challenged after permission was granted, but the OIA subsequently revoked and replaced it with a fresh decision dated 30 October 2013. The claimant maintained challenges to the fresh decision, including findings concerning unfair treatment, missing coursework, the handling of complaints, alleged dishonesty, the constitution of the complaints panel, and the recommended remedies.

The OIA partly justified the complaint and recommended an apology, repayment of course fees and £6,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The central issues were whether the fresh decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned, and whether the recommended compensation was legally unsustainable.

1. The claim failed on all grounds. The original OIA decision had been revoked and replaced. Any challenge to it was therefore academic and was not considered except as background or for comparison.
2. Decisions of the OIA are amenable to judicial review. However, the OIA has a broad discretion in determining how to approach a complaint, and the court must have regard to its expertise. The court should be slow to interfere with its choice of procedure or with a decision and recommendation that are rationally sustainable. This approach was supported by R (Siborurema) v OIA [2007] EWCA Civ 1365, R (Maxwell) v OIA [2011] EWCA Civ 1236, and Muldoon v IPCC [2009] EWHC 3633 (Admin).
3. The court was not a primary fact-finder. The OIA was entitled to conclude that the different arrangements for the two online seminars did not amount to unfair treatment; that the first and second decisions were not materially inconsistent concerning the missing coursework; and that the evidence did not justify a finding that Dr C had acted dishonestly.
4. The OIA was also entitled to reject the complaints concerning the constitution of the complaints panel. A reasonable observer would not regard Dr W as biased because she was a Deputy Complaints Investigation Officer, where she had no prior involvement in the complaint and was outside the relevant department.
5. The OIA had power to review and re-determine its decisions, and elaborate reasoning was not required in assessing compensation, as recognised in R (Cardao-Pito) v OIA & London Business School [2012] EWHC 203 (Admin). The £6,000 recommendation was not mathematically explained, but the evidence contained substantial uncertainties. A rounded figure within the range of rational recommendations was legally permissible.
6. The application for judicial review was dismissed. Consequential costs were to be addressed by agreement or written submissions.

The judgment itself records the following procedural history:

• High Court (Administrative Court): Collins J refused permission on paper on 31 August 2012.
• High Court (Administrative Court): HHJ Sycamore granted permission at a renewed oral hearing on 23 April 2013.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the present court dismissed the challenge to the OIA’s replacement decision.