The Queen and Another v King's College London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE OUSELEY |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 66 (Admin) |
| Date | 12 December 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO 3805/2000 |
[2001] EWHC 66 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO 3805/2000
MR OLIVER HYAMS (instructed by Elaine Maxwell & Co, Lancaster LA1 1EW) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR PHILIP HAVERS QC (instructed by Messrs Denton Wilde Sapte, London EC4A 1BU) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
(As approved)
This is an oral application, adjourned from a paper application, by Mr Oliver Plunkett for permission to challenge the decision of King's College taken on 19th August 2000 not to re-admit him to the MBBS course at King's College London. The claimant had been a medical student at King's College, but, during a year of elective studying in Kenya in 1993, he began to suffer from a mental illness brought on apparently by the use of an anti-malarial drug called Larium. The effect of that drug over time, and the mental illness and depression that it can sometimes entail as a side effect, was that his ability to study and take examinations was severely affected. Following failures and withdrawal from revision courses, he withdrew from the MBBS programme shortly after Christmas in 1996.
In late December 1997, he sought to be permitted to recommence his studies on the programme. By decisions made in August 1998 the claimant was, in effect, removed from the college. The claimant contends that that decision was in breach of various rules —which is conceded at least in part —and was, for a variety of reasons, unfair. But it is perfectly clear that, by virtue of a letter of 5th January 1999 from Mr Salter, the deputy college solicitor, to Mr Plunkett, Mr Plunkett would have realised that he would not be re-admitted to the programme because he had failed the psychiatric assessment conducted by Professor Ramirez. At that point, whatever may have been Mr Plunkett's understanding hitherto, it was perfectly plain that he knew he was not being re-admitted. At that stage he might have been in a position to lodge an appeal, subject to a debate about timing and a procedural error on the part of King's College against that refusal to re-admit. Alternatively, he might have had judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Again, Most Losses Held To Be Direct Losses
...Foods (GB) Limited v Eco-Tec (Europe) Limited [2001] EWHC 66 McCain had a waste water treatment system which produced biogas. It contracted with Eco-Tec for a system to remove hydrogen sulphide from the biogas. McCain could then use the biogas as fuel to generate heat and electricity. Becau......