Patel v University of Bradford Senate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J0123-3 |
| Date | 23 January 1979 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 1977 P No. 3758 |
[1979] EWCA Civ J0123-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice Chancery Division
The Vice Chancellor
Lord Justice Orr
Wlord Justice Ormrod and
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane
THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF appeared in person.
MR. H. A. P. PICARDA (instructed by Messrs. Robbins, Olivey & Lake) appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Respondents.
This is an appeal by Mr. Patel, formerly an undergraduate in the University of Bradford and who in this court as in the court below had conducted his own case, against an order made by the Vice Chancellor on 4th May of last year, striking out, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon them, both an originating summons whereby the appellant sought against the Senate of the University a number of declarations and also a writ by which he sought two declarations, an unspecified injunction and exemplary damages against a former Vice Chancellor and Principal of the same University.
The background facts of the case are set out in the judgment under appeal (now reported in 1978 1 WLR at page 1488) and can be summarised as follows: in 1972 the plaintiff was admitted to the University to read the honours course in computer science for the degree of Bachelor of Technology. He failed his examination at the end of the academic year and was permitted to sit it again in September 1973; and again he failed. A meeting of the Undergraduate School of Studies in Mathematical Sciences recommended that the plaintiff should fail and that he should be required to withdraw from the University. The plaintiff was notified, and a meeting of the Board of Studies in Physical Sciences confirmed the recommendation; and the Senate then approved it. The Student Progress Committee subsequently considered a letter from the plaintiff, but confirmed the decision; and the plaintiff was notified. The plaintiff then applied to the Chairman of his Undergraduate School of Studies to be allowed to re-enter. The Chairman did not recommend this to the Senate (the only body which can authorise re-entry), but advised the plaintiff to apply throughthe University Central Council of Admissions ("UCCA"). Finally, on the 4th February, 1974 the Chairman wrote to the plaintiff. The letter reads as follows: "Dear Mr. Patel, Thank you for your letter, I can see that you have admirable persistence. I cannot possibly consider re-admitting you to the School of Mathematical Sciences unless you can demonstrate a significant improvement in your mathematical abilities by some such feat as obtaining some very high grades in mathematics at A-level. You have taken our course and failed the examinations on two separate occasions in June and September 1973. Also I note a very high absence rate from tutorials. From your two failures, we infer that you lack the necessary qualities to obtain a degree in mathematics."
That is not true.
The letter goes on to say "The only subject in which you showed reasonable ability was economics and thus I can only endorse the advice already given to you by the Fro Vice Chancellor, Mr. McKinlay, that you should abandon any idea of taking a degree in mathematics (unless of course you can demonstrate significant improvement, as indicated in paragraph 2), and try to build on your ability in economics", and the Chairman referred to courses which there were at Bradford University.
Following that letter there was further correspondence between the appellant and the University authorities in which they required improved A-level standards before considering him for re-admission.
Of the declarations sought in the plaintiff's originating summons, one related to the unlawfulness of the refusal to re-admit him. The claims set out in the originating summons were for a declaration that the defendants unreasonably, arbitrarily and unlawfully withheld the examination results of the plaintiff; then there were four further declarations sought and then a declaration that on the true construction of the charter, statutes and regulations, the plaintiff was and is entitled to re-admission and that the defendants arbitrarily, unreasonably and unlawfully refused it. Then there were two further declarations sought.
The claim in the writ against the former Vice Chancellor was for a declaration that the defendant arbitrarily, unreasonably and unlawfully purported to refuse the plaintiff re-admission to the University of Bradford and that he arbitrarily, unreasonably, capriciously and unlawfully purported to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v University of Bradford
...behalf of the Crown: see Attorney General v. Dedham School (1857) 23 Beav. 350 and the judgment of Sir Robert Megarry V.-C. in Patel v. Bradford University Senate [1978] 1 W.L.R. 19It has been conceded by the respondent that the jurisdiction of the visitor is an exclusive jurisdiction, and......
-
Mason (Vanessa) v The University of the West Indies
...hear this matter. In support of the submissions, counsel for the defendant UWI cited a number of authorities including Patel v University of Bradford Senate and Another [1978] 3 All E. R. 841, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1488; Hines v Birkbeck College [1985] 3 All ER 156; Thomas v University of Bradf......
- R v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page
-
Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
...Visitor's exclusive jurisdiction: see Thomas v University of Bradford [1987] AC 795 and (where no Visitor has been appointed) Patel v University of Bradford Senate [1978] 3 All E R 841. But ULH is simply a statutory corporation with the ordinary attributes of legal personality and a capacit......