In House or in Court? Legal Challenges to University Decisions
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Kamvounias Patty and Varnham Sally 2006, 'In House or in Court? Legal Challenges to University Decisions', Taylor and Francis - Routledge, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-17.
- Issue Date:
- 2006
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Every day, decisions are made in universities that affect students. When a decision adversely affects a
particular student, what means of redress does that student have? The circumstances in which a
student has a legal claim against their university are generally unclear. Courts have traditionally
tended to draw a distinction between ‘purely academic’ decisions and disciplinary decisions. There
has been reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in non-disciplinary decisions which involve
academic judgment, for example, the grade to be given to a student’s work. On the other hand,
where the decisions are purely disciplinary, for example, in relation to a student’s behaviour towards
others or towards university property, the courts have made it clear that there is essentially no
difference between this and disciplinary matters within any other public institution or organization.
However, disciplinary decisions that are connected with allegations of academic misconduct, for
example, cheating and/or plagiarism, have been more problematic for the courts. Historically, the
debate was whether any such decision was justiciable in public law. Recently the question has also
been whether an aggrieved student may succeed in a private law action against a university. The legal
issues raised by university decisions affecting students have not yet been clearly resolved in all
jurisdictions. Indeed, in some cases, judges have raised many more questions than they have
answered. This article will review the framework for legal challenges to university decisions against a
background of recent judicial attitudes in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: