KT, R (on the application of) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator

31 July 2024

[2024] EWHC 2003 (Admin)

High Court

A student (KT) was expelled from university and complained to the OIA. The OIA said the university made a mistake but then changed its mind because of KT's bail conditions, without letting KT explain. The judge said the OIA was unfair and must redo its decision. KT won some, but not all, of the case.

Key Facts

•KT (Claimant) was a student at the University of Reading (Interested Party) who faced disciplinary allegations resulting in expulsion.
•KT appealed the expulsion to the University's Student Appeals Committee (SAC), which was dismissed.
•KT complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) (Defendant).
•The OIA found the complaint partly justified, citing insufficient reasons for the severity of the penalty (expulsion).
•The OIA issued proposed recommendations, then revised them after considering the University's response and KT's bail conditions.
•KT challenged the OIA's decision-making process through judicial review.

Legal Principles

Open justice principle vs. Anonymity orders to protect sensitive information (mental health, criminal allegations).

s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and CPR 39.2(4)

OIA's role as an independent reviewer of student complaints under the Higher Education Act 2004.

Higher Education Act 2004 (2004 Act) and OIA Scheme Rules

Judicial review time limits and the permissibility of challenging a final decision based on earlier flawed decisions.

CPR 54.5, R (Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2002] UKHL 23, R (Eisai Ltd) v NICE [2008] EWCA Civ 438, Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWCA Civ 2259, R (Fylde Coast Farms Ltd) v Fylde Borough Council [2021] UKSC 18

Procedural fairness in OIA decision-making, including the duty to provide opportunities for comment on relevant information.

Common law duty of fairness, OIA Scheme Rules rule 12.3

Adequacy of reasons for OIA decisions. Proportionate approach and limited resources.

Maxwell v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 1236, R (Cardao-Pito) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education [2012] EWHC 203 (Admin)

Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 – refusal of remedy if the outcome would likely be the same.

Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(2A)

Outcomes

Anonymity order extended for KT.

Necessary to protect KT's interests, particularly concerning mental health and bail conditions.

Claimant's application to amend to challenge the OIA's outcome decision (2 November 2023) refused.

The application was out of time and lacked sufficient justification.

Claimant's application to amend to challenge the OIA's continuation decision refused.

Application was made too late and lacked merit.

OIA's final recommendations (30 November 2023) quashed.

The OIA acted unfairly by not giving KT an opportunity to respond to the University's letter concerning his bail conditions, which materially affected the final recommendations. Section 31(2A) did not apply.

OIA ordered to pay 25% of Claimant's costs.

Claimant was partially successful, but the procedural failings contributed to the overall costs.

KT, R (on the application of) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman

MD Ayaz Karim, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police

Dragutin Popovic, R (on the application of) v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors

Radoslaw Kaleta, R (on the application of) v The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman