31:
152:
adjudication 'because these are issues of academic or pastoral judgment which the university is equipped to consider in breadth and depth, but on which any judgment of the courts would be jejune and inappropriate'. But there was a public law dimension for statutory HEIs and judicial review available. This, with a 3 month time limit was preferable to the 6 year limit for contract.
116:
in her
Humanities undergraduate degree was lost. After she submitted some notes copied from a Methuen commentary, she was failed for plagiarism. On appeal the Academic Appeals Board decided this finding should be abandoned. It was, she was awarded zero, it was appealed again, and the same result. She
178:
AC 682). Where a claim is brought against a university by one of its students, if because the university is a "new university" created by statute, it does not have a visitor, the role of the court will frequently amount to performing the reviewing role which would otherwise be performed by the
151:
Ch 524 applied. A claim against a public body for breach of contract should not be struck out simply because judicial review might be more appropriate. The CPR 1998 enabled courts to prevent unfair exploitation of the longer time limits for civil suits. Some aspects of were 'unsuitable' for
130:
The High Court held that breach of contract claims were not justiciable in the courts. She appealed, and the
University argued it was an abuse of process to bring a contract action with a six year limitation period, rather than judicial review with a three month limitation period.
171:
A university is a public body... Court proceedings would, therefore, normally be expected to be commenced under Order 53 . If the university is subject to the supervision of a visitor there is little scope for those proceedings
139:
Sedley LJ held that the claim should not be struck out. The relationship of a university to a fee paying student was contractual and courts could adjudicate upon them. Much had changed since
223:
218:
101:
179:
visitor. The court, for reasons which have been explained, will not involve itself with issues that involve making academic judgments.
81:
100:
Ms Clark claimed that the procedures for reviewing her grades were unlawful, after she got a third class degree from the
174:
109:
147:
145:. However, questions of academic judgment had to be excluded as unsuitable for adjudication by the courts:
30:
105:
35:
163:
141:
189:
85:
46:
117:
claimed in contract that it was a breach. The
University applied for a strike out action.
77:
212:
158:
89:
112:. Her computer had crashed, and the assignment she wrote on
60:
52:
42:
23:
74:Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
169:
8:
29:
20:
102:University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
224:United Kingdom constitutional case law
66:Enterprise, education, judicial review
7:
161:agreed and added a set of points on
88:case, concerning the regulation of
219:United Kingdom enterprise case law
24:Clark v University of Lincolnshire
14:
175:Page v Hull University Visitor
1:
240:
110:Education Reform Act 1988
108:), established under the
65:
56:EWCA Civ 129, 1 WLR 1988
28:
167:2 AC 237, Lord Diplock.
148:Hines v Birkbeck College
114:A Streetcar Named Desire
181:
106:University of Lincoln
36:University of Lincoln
164:O'Reilly v Mackman
142:O'Reilly v Mackman
190:UK enterprise law
70:
69:
231:
155:Ward LJ agreed.
104:(now called the
47:UK Supreme Court
33:
21:
239:
238:
234:
233:
232:
230:
229:
228:
209:
208:
203:
198:
186:
137:
135:Court of Appeal
128:
123:
98:
82:judicial review
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
237:
235:
227:
226:
221:
211:
210:
207:
206:
202:
199:
197:
194:
193:
192:
185:
182:
136:
133:
127:
124:
122:
119:
97:
94:
86:enterprise law
68:
67:
63:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
236:
225:
222:
220:
217:
216:
214:
205:
204:
200:
195:
191:
188:
187:
183:
180:
177:
176:
168:
166:
165:
160:
159:Lord Woolf MR
156:
153:
150:
149:
144:
143:
134:
132:
125:
120:
118:
115:
111:
107:
103:
95:
93:
91:
87:
83:
79:
76:
75:
64:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
173:
170:
162:
157:
154:
146:
140:
138:
129:
113:
99:
78:EWCA Civ 129
73:
72:
71:
18:
213:Categories
201:References
126:High Court
16:Legal Case
90:education
184:See also
121:Judgment
80:is a UK
61:Keywords
53:Citation
196:Notes
96:Facts
43:Court
84:and
215::
92:.
172:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
