AW, R (On the Application Of) v St George's, University of London

The claimant, a medical student at St George's University of London, sought judicial review of the termination of her registration, the university's failure to warn her that termination was being considered, and the refusal to allow an internal complaint or to issue a Completion of Procedures (COP) letter for the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). The court held that the termination letter dated 12 March 2019 (served 3 April 2019) was unlawful because SGUL did not give the claimant a fair opportunity to make representations nor adequately warn her that termination was being considered.

The judge considered relevant SGUL regulations and policies (including provisions on interruption of studies, Occupational Health reassessment, enrolment requirements and Regulation 4.11) and statutory and procedural matters relating to the OIA and s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981. The court concluded that, on the facts, SGUL should have invited the claimant's submissions before terminating her registration, that the failure to issue a COP letter could not be the primary basis for declaratory relief, and that the appropriate remedy was to quash the termination decision.

Background and parties: The claimant (AW) was registered on SGUL's MBBS course. After clinical attachments and treatment for a renal cancer diagnosis, AW was granted interruptions of study and extensions of registration at various points. In early 2019 SGUL terminated her registration by a letter dated 12 March 2019 (served 3 April 2019). AW applied for judicial review challenging the termination; she also complained that she had not been warned that termination was being considered and that SGUL refused to allow a complaint or to issue a COP letter to enable OIA review.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: Judicial review seeking quashing of the termination decision, declarations and/or orders that SGUL should have (i) warned and heard AW before termination, and (ii) allowed a complaint and issued a COP letter; AW also sought anonymity and an extension of time for other challenges. SGUL defended and argued that, even if lawful error were shown, relief should be refused under s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 because the outcome would not have been substantially different.

Procedural posture: Permission to bring the judicial review was granted. The evidence and documentary history included SGUL regulations and policies (General Regulations, MBBS Regulations, Attendance Policy, IOS policy, Extension Procedure, Complaints Procedure) and OIA guidance. The court heard argument on whether SGUL complied with its own published rules, the requirements of fairness, and whether relief should be withheld under s.31(2A).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether SGUL lawfully terminated registration in accordance with its published regulations and policies;
• Whether SGUL was required, as a matter of procedural fairness or legitimate expectation, to give AW warning and an opportunity to make submissions before termination;
• Whether SGUL unlawfully refused to allow an internal complaint or to issue a COP letter so as to frustrate OIA review;
• Whether relief should be refused under s.31(2A) because the outcome would not have been substantially different.

Reasoning and findings: The court accepted that universities must act consistently with published policies, that students have legitimate expectations and contractual rights that policies will be followed, and that serious steps like termination ordinarily require fair warning and opportunity to respond. The termination letter relied principally on (a) the claimant's failure to comply with an Occupational Health reassessment and (b) failure to return/enrol by the expected date. The court found SGUL had not made clear that failure to attend Occupational Health or to re-enrol by a specific date would lead to termination, and had not invited submissions before making the decision. The court rejected SGUL's contention that the upholding of an earlier ERP decision rendered a complaint or COP unnecessary. The judge concluded the termination decision was unlawful for failure to afford procedural fairness and quashed the decision. The court declined to make a standalone declaratory order that a COP should have been issued, but recognised the claimant was entitled to complain internally and to a COP in the usual circumstances. On s.31(2A) the court was not satisfied it was highly likely the outcome would have been the same had the claimant been heard; accordingly relief was not refused on that ground.

The judge quashed the decision of 12 March 2019 (served 3 April 2019) terminating the claimant's registration because SGUL had not given the claimant adequate warning that termination was being considered nor a fair opportunity to make submissions. The court found SGUL’s process inconsistent with its published policies and the requirements of fairness in the circumstances, and refused to withhold relief under s.31(2A). The court declined to make a separate declaration that a Completion of Procedures letter should have been issued, although it accepted the claimant was entitled to follow internal complaints processes and OIA procedures in appropriate cases.