Claims against a university: the role of administrative review in Australia and the United Kingdom

Abstract

The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Griffith University v. Tang denied judicial review to a student aggrieved by the decision of a university to exclude her. This article analyses the role of judicial review of university decision-making in the United Kingdom and Australia, analysing the justification for administrative remedies in universities. It considers the legislative reform of administrative review in Australia, and the impact of that reform in some states. It places administrative review in the context of the visitorial jurisdiction, where that jurisdiction still exists. Finally, it addresses some of the policy aspects of denying judicial review in the case of the university.

The author wishes to acknowledge the kind assistance and patient comments of Professor Harold Luntz on previous manifestations of this article; part of this article formed part of a doctoral thesis. Errors remain the author's own.

Notes

1. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005).

2. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005), at [99].

3. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005), at [100].

4. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005).

5. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005), at [1] (Gleeson CJ).

6. Tang v. Griffith University [2003] QSC 22 (McKenzie J).

7. Tang v. Griffith University [2003] QCA 571.

8. J. R. S. Forbes, Disciplinary tribunals (2nd edn, 1996), 2.

9. J. R. S. Forbes, Disciplinary tribunals (2nd edn, 1996), 3.

10. J. R. S. Forbes, Disciplinary tribunals (2nd edn, 1996), 260. See R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club; ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 2 All ER 853.

11. [1969] 2 QB 538.

12. See Forbes, note 8, 260, B. A. Hepple, Natural justice for rusticated students [1969] The Cambridge Law Journal 169. Note that no appointment of a visitor to the university had been made, and it does not seem to have been argued that the Queen-in-Counsel should have been visitor until the power to make such an appointment had been exercised.

13. E. I. Sykes et al., General principles of administrative law (4th edn, 1997), 3.

14. The package of reforms includes the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth), the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

15. The Victorian package includes the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1984, the Administrative Law Act 1978, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Ombudsman Act 1973. New South Wales now has the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW).

16. Forbes, note 8, 6.

17. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth); Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic); Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) S69; Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Part 54 rr 1, 4; South Australia by amendment to the Rules of the Supreme Court in 1987; Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). See Forbes, note 8, 258.

18. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth); Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic); Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT); Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

19. Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) S69(1), SCR (NSW) 1970 Part 54.

20. Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) S41, Schedule 4.

21. Supreme Court Rules (SA) Part 1 r 98.

22. Supreme Court Rules (NT) O 56.

23. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) S39b.

24. Constitution S75(v); High Court Rules O 55.

25. Rules of the Supreme Court (ACT) O 55.

26. Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 56.

27. Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (Tas) O 72. See Forbes, note 8, 259.

28. For instance, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) in England have promulgated a Code of Practice governing appeals procedures at postgraduate research degree level. Individual universities have either adopted the provisions or made equivalent provisions in their regulations.

29. R. v. Committee of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acting for the Visitor of the University of London, ex parte Viyatunga [1988] 1 QB 322.

30. See, for instance, R. v. Senate of the University of Aston, ex parte [1969] 2 QB 538, where no visitor had been appointed to the university. In a dispute involving Professor Kim Sawyer and the Department of Economics and Finance at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the visitor found that he lacked jurisdiction because RMIT had not taken the necessary steps to prescribe staff as members of the University under the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 1992 (see the report of the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing (In the public interest, Canberra, 1994) and the report of that committee on unresolved whistleblower cases: The public interest revisited, Canberra, 1995. See also Peregrine W. F. Whalley and David M. Price, The university visitor in Tasmania: retention, repeal or reform?, in: Rick Snell (Ed.) The role of the university visitor a symposium, Occasional Paper No. 5 (Hobart, University of Tasmania Law Press, 1997), 8, 18. In some states the jurisdiction of the visitor is attenuated by legislation: for instance, the University Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (NSW) provides that, for each of the universities with a visitor, the Governor is the visitor but has ceremonial functions only.

31. (1902) 87 Lt 618.

32. [1983] 1 All ER 88.

33. [1983] 1 All ER 88, 91 quoting Peter M. Smith, The exclusive jurisdiction of the university visitor (1981) 97 Law Quarterly Review 610, 642.

34. (1943) 44 SR (NSW) 19.

35. [1963] SR (NSW) 723.

36. [1994] ELR 187.

37. Griffith University v. Tang [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005).

38. See Francine Rochford, The relationship between the student and the university (1998) 3 Australia and New Zealand Journal of Law & Education 28.

39. R. v. University of Hull Visitor ex parte Page [1993] AC 682; R. v. University of Nottingham ex parte K [1998] ELR 184. In the latter case the Court said ‘the exclusive visitorial jurisdiction, certainly over academic decisions and the proper application of university procedures in reaching them, is alive and well ... there is no arguable basis ... for the assumption of the courts of an overlapping review before the visitor has exercised his jurisdiction’ (Auld LJ). Ex parte Death (1852) 18 QBD 647 demonstrates the judicial reluctance to review university disciplinary proceedings.

40. David Palfreyman, The HEI–student legal relationship, with special reference to the USA experience (1999) 11 Education and the Law 5, 18.

41. Forbes, note 8, 12–13. He says ‘[m]ost if not all Australian universities and tertiary colleges possess hybrid tribunals’—the universities originally exercised purely consensual jurisdiction, and retain domestic features, but they now have statutory support.

42. Forbes, note 8, 12–13. He says ‘[m]ost if not all Australian universities and tertiary colleges possess hybrid tribunals’—the universities originally exercised purely consensual jurisdiction, and retain domestic features, but they now have statutory support., 254.

43. Forbes, note 8, 12–13. He says ‘[m]ost if not all Australian universities and tertiary colleges possess hybrid tribunals’—the universities originally exercised purely consensual jurisdiction, and retain domestic features, but they now have statutory support.; Lawlor v. Union of Post Office Workers [1965] Ch 712, 733; Leigh v. National Union of Railwaymen [1970] Ch 326, 334.

44. Oliver Hyams, Correspondence (1999) 11 Education and the Law 147.

45. R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815; De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, Judicial review of administrative action (5th edn, 1995), [3-025].

46. R. v. University of Liverpool, ex parte Caesar-Gordon [1991] 1 QB 124; R. v. University College, London, ex parte Riniker [1995] ELR 213; Kent v. University College, London, The Times, 18 February 1992; Oliver Hyams, Law of education (1998) [12-072].

47. [1960] 1 All ER 631.

48. S. A. De Smith, University discipline and natural justice (1960) 23 Modern Law Review 428, 428.

49. S. A. De Smith, University discipline and natural justice (1960) 23 Modern Law Review 428, 431.

50. D. J. Farrington, The law of higher education (1998) 363.

51. See, for instance, David Palfreyman and David Warner (Eds) Higher education and the law—a guide for managers (1998) 134.

52. See, for instance, R. v. University of Cambridge, ex parte Evans [1997] unreported, CO/101/97, 22 August.

53. Alex J. Carroll, The abuse of academic disciplinary power (1994) 14 New Law Journal 729.

54. R. v. Manchester Metropolitan University ex parte Nolan, The Independent, 15 July 1993, CO/2856/92.

55. R. v. Manchester Metropolitan University ex parte Nolan, The Independent, 15 July 1993, CO/2856/92, (Sedley J).

56. Forbes, note 8, 12.

57. Thorne v. University of London (1966) 2 QB 237.

58. R. v. University of Liverpool, ex parte Caesar-Gordon [1991] 1 QB 124; R. v. University College, London, ex parte Riniker [1995] ELR 213; Kent v. University College, London, The Times, 18 February 1992; cf. Rajah v. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [1994] ILRM 233. See Oliver Hyams, Law of education (1998) [12.071–12.073]; Palfreyman, note 40, 19, clarified in Hyams, Correspondence, note 44, 147.

59. Thomson v. University of London (1864) 33 LJ Ch 625; Thorne v. University of London (1966) 2 QB 237; Bell v. University of Auckland [1969] NZLR 1029; Herring v. Templeman [1973] 2 All ER 381; [1973] 3 All ER 569; Patel v. Bradford University Senate [1978] 1 WLR 1488; Re University of Melbourne; ex parte De Simone [1981] VR 378.

60. R. v. Bishop of Lincoln (1785) 2 TR 338n; R. v. Bishop of Ely (1794) 5 TR 475; 101 ER 267; King v. University of Saskatchewan (1969) 1 DLR 3d 721; (1969) 6 DLR 3d 120.

61. Patel v. Bradford University Senate [1978] 1 WLR 1488, 1499; Webb v. Simon Fraser University (1978) 83 DLR 3d 244; Riddle v. University of Victoria (1978) 84 DLR 3d 164; Murdoch University v. Bloom and Kyle [1980] 1 VR 568.

62. Hazan v. La Trobe University (No. 2) [1993] 1 VR 568. See Forbes, note 8, 15.

63. R. v. University of Humberside ex parte Cousens [1995] Ed LM 2 (6) 11, CA; M v. London Guildhall University [1998] ELR 144.

64. R. v. Liverpool John Moores University ex parte Hayes (June 13, 1997, unreported). Palfreyman, above n 40, 20; cf. Forbes, note 8, 253–254.

65. [1969] 2 QB 538.

66. D. L. Foulkes, Administrative law (5th edn, 1982), 241.

67. [1994] 1 All ER 651.

68. R. v. Committee of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acting for the Visitor of the University of London, ex parte Viyatunga [1988] 1 QB 322.

69. Saleh v. University of Dundee (1992) The Times, 23 December; Thomas v. University of Bradford [1987] AC 795; [1987] 1 All ER 795; Carlton v. Glasgow Caledonian University (1993) OH (unreported); Re University of Sydney ex parte Forster (1963) 63 SR (NSW) 723.

70. (1981) 34 ALR 333, 334–335.

71. Hamblin v. Duffy (1981) 34 ALR 333, 334–335.

72. (1982) 64 FLR 166.

73. (1996) 138 ALR 1.

74. Forbes, note 8, 12, citing as examples Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 (Cth) SS11, 26; Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) S14; Supreme Court Act 1867 (Qld) SS21–23, 34.

75. See Supreme Court Rules (NSW) Part 54 rr 1 and 4; Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld); Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic), which is merely procedural (S12, Monash University v. Berg [1984] VR 383) and does not extend to private tribunals (Monash University v. Berg [1984] VR 383); Forbes, note 8, 12.

76. (1996) 138 ALR 1.

77. (1982) 64 FLR 166.

78. Griffith University v. Tang [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [3] (Gleeson CJ).

79. The substance of this paragraph is largely taken from the judgment of Gleeson CJ.

80. Bray v. The University of Melbourne & Ors [2001] VSC 391 (19 October 2001)

81. M. Aronson and N. Franklin, Review of administrative action (1987) 24, citing Re University of Melbourne; Ex parte De Simone [1981] VR 378; and Thomas v. University of Bradford [1987] AC 795.

82. William Ricquier, The university visitor (1977–8) 4 The Dalhousie Law Journal 647, 667. See, for instance, R. v. St John's College, Cambridge (1693) 4 Mod 233; 87 ER 366, R. v. Windham (1776) 1 Cowp 377; 98 ER 1139.

83. (1748) 1 W Bl 37.

84. R. v. Whitmore and Dawes, immediately preceding.

85. James Williams, Williams's law of the universities (1910).

86. [1973] 2 All ER 581; aff'd [1973] 3 All ER 569.

87. See J F Garner, Students: contract or status? (1974) 90 Law Quarterly Review 6, 7.

88. [1975] 3 WWR 167 (Alta SCTD); affirmed [1975] 5 WWR 429 (Alta SC, AD).

89. [1969] SCR 678, 6 DLR (3d) 120, 68 WWR 745; affirming (1969) 1 DLR 321, 67 WWR 126 (Sask CA) affirming (1969) 66 WWR 505 (Sask QB).

90. (1787) 1 TR 650.

91. [1993] AC 682.

92. R. v. Bishop of Lincoln (1785) 2 TR 338n; R. v. Bishop of Ely (1794) 5 TR 475; 101 ER 267; King v. University of Saskatchewan (1969) 1 DLR 3d 721; (1969) 6 DLR 3d 120; Forbes, note 8, 15.

93. Dr Bentley v. Bishop of Ely (1729) 1 Barn KB 192; Hazan v. La Trobe University (No. 2) [1993] 1 VR 568.

94. Peregrine W. F. Whalley and David M. Price, The university visitor in Tasmania: retention, repeal or reform?, in: Rick Snell (Ed.) The role of the university visitor: a symposium, Occasional Paper No. 5 (Hobart, University of Tasmania Law Press, 1997), 18.

95. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [100] (Kirby J).

96. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [100] (Kirby J), [104].

97. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [100] (Kirby J).

98. Here, Kirby J cites, at [106], The Australian encyclopaedia, 4th edn (1983), vol. 10, 130.

99. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [107] (Kirby J).

100. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [107] (Kirby J), [108].

101. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [107] (Kirby J), [104].

102. [2005] HCA 7 (3 March 2005) [107] (Kirby J), [110].