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

A university must decide whether to terminate a student’s registration consistently with its published regulations and policies. Those materials may also create contractual obligations and legitimate expectations. Where termination is being considered, fairness ordinarily requires the university to explain the proposed grounds with sufficient clarity and give the student a reasonable opportunity to respond before the decision is made. A prior decision under a different procedure does not automatically authorise termination for alleged non-compliance with recommendations or conditions. A separate final termination decision may require its own Completion of Procedures letter under the applicable student-complaints scheme. Relief should not be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 merely because the ultimate result might have been the same where the student was denied a fair opportunity to make representations.

The claimant was a medical student whose registration was terminated after she failed to attend an occupational-health assessment, return to clinical placements, and complete enrolment formalities. The university treated termination as following from conditions associated with her interruption of studies and from an earlier decision concerning an extension of registration.

She challenged the termination by judicial review, alleging inconsistency with the university’s regulations and policies, procedural unfairness, and the refusal to hear a complaint or issue a Completion of Procedures letter under the Office of the Independent Adjudicator scheme. Permission was granted on those grounds, except for a separate public-sector equality duty ground. The central issues were whether the termination was lawful and fair, whether a further internal complaint and Completion of Procedures letter were required, and whether relief should be refused because the outcome would probably have been unchanged.

1. The claim succeeded in part. The decision to terminate registration made on 12 March 2019 and served on 3 April 2019 was quashed.
2. A university should act consistently with its published policies. Its regulations and policies may form part of the contractual relationship with a student and may generate a legitimate expectation that they will be followed. The seriousness of termination, together with the student’s investment of time and fees, reinforced the requirement of fairness.
3. SGUL had not established an agreed condition that authorised automatic termination for failure to attend occupational health. The relevant panel had no power to impose such a condition. Although a further occupational-health assessment before return to study was objectively understandable, SGUL had not explained that failure to attend could lead to termination, had not specified a relevant deadline, and had not invited AW’s evidence or submissions.
4. The same defect applied to the failure to return to placements and complete enrolment. SGUL had not warned AW clearly that failure to attend, notify the placement team, or re-enrol by a specified date might result in termination. The decision-maker therefore acted unfairly and unlawfully.
5. The refusal to hear a complaint was also misconceived. The termination decision was separate from the earlier decision upholding the Registration Extension Panel’s recommendations. It was not an appeal against that earlier decision and was capable of being challenged under SGUL’s Complaints Procedure. The termination was a final decision that would ordinarily have entitled AW to a Completion of Procedures letter under the OIA rules. No declaration was made on that issue because the principal unlawfulness was the failure to provide a fair opportunity to respond before termination.
6. Relief was not refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It was not highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same. AW might have addressed the proposed reliance on the relevant regulation, occupational-health requirement, enrolment, and any further extension of registration. The parties were given 14 days to address costs and permission to appeal.