AB v XYZ

16 May 2023

[2023] EWHC 1162 (KB)

High Court

A student was kicked out of university for something he didn't get to properly defend himself against. The university used someone else's statement without letting him ask them questions. The judge said that was unfair and sent the case back to be done properly.

Key Facts

•AB, a former student, claimed breach of contract by XYZ University due to a disciplinary process deemed unfair.
•AB was expelled from the University following allegations of sexual misconduct.
•The disciplinary process involved the admission of hearsay evidence without opportunity for cross-examination.
•A previous High Court judgment found AB had a right to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing.
•A second disciplinary hearing was held without the complainant present, relying solely on hearsay evidence.
•AB argued that the admission of hearsay evidence without cross-examination breached natural justice.

Legal Principles

Natural justice principles apply to university disciplinary proceedings, particularly where publicly subsidised education is involved.

Mr Southey KC's judgment, [2020] EWHC 2978 (QB)

The right to legal representation in disciplinary proceedings depends on the circumstances. Fairness may require it, particularly in serious cases.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Tarrant [1985] Q.B. 251

Admission of hearsay evidence without opportunity for cross-examination can be unfair, especially when it is the sole or decisive evidence against the accused. The seriousness of the allegations and potential consequences are key factors.

Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogbonna [2010] EWCA Civ 1216; R (Sim) v Parole Board for England and Wales [2003] EWCA Civ 1845; R (on the application Bonhoeffer) v The General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin); Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin)

University disciplinary committees must observe the rules of natural justice. This includes ensuring a fair and reasonable process, even if hearsay evidence is admitted. The process must not lead to a wrong result.

Regulation 23 of the University's regulations (both 2018 and 2019 versions)

A decision is Wednesbury unreasonable if no reasonable tribunal could have reached it.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (implied)

Outcomes

The decision of the second Disciplinary Committee was set aside.

The committee's admission of hearsay evidence without the opportunity for cross-examination breached natural justice and was Wednesbury unreasonable. The complainant's absence, even with a purported good reason, did not justify this.

The decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Committee was also set aside.

The appeal committee failed to correct the breaches of natural justice committed by the second Disciplinary Committee.

AB v XYZ

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

LM & Anor, R (on the application of) v An Academy Trust

University Of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart (Administrator of the estate of Natasha Abrahart, deceased)

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

Paramjit Bhogal (aka Paramjeet Bhogal) v National Education Union

Junior Lawal v The Crown Court at Cambridge