For most university students, disciplinary procedures are unfamiliar, intimidating and stressful. When something goes wrong, there is often an assumption that the process will be fair and supportive. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
The legal basis of university discipline
The relationship between a student and their university engages several areas of law but is primarily based in contract law. A university’s right to discipline a student is based on the contract between the parties created by its regulations and policies. There is no standard scheme, meaning that disciplinary frameworks vary from one university to another.
However, the relationship also has a public law character. As a result, universities are required to act fairly when exercising disciplinary powers. In public law terms, this includes ensuring that decision‑makers are impartial and that students are given a proper opportunity to respond to allegations.
Breach of procedure and legal challenge
Where a university fails to follow its own disciplinary procedures, that failure may amount to a breach of contract, and any resulting decision may be open to challenge. Where there has been a lack of procedural fairness, the process may be unlawful and exposed to a challenge by way of judicial review. Certain conduct might also give rise to a claim in negligence or for breach of a statutory obligation.
Principles of fairness and common procedural failings
University disciplinary processes should deal with allegations of misconduct in a way that follows principles of natural justice. Processes should be clear, timely, proportionate, fair and impartial. In practice, however, many students encounter procedures that are rushed or inconsistent or poorly managed.
Common problems include unclear allegations, inadequate or late disclosure of evidence, failures to follow the university’s own procedures, unreasonable delays, and panels that lack independence or appropriate training. These defects go directly to the lawfulness and fairness of the decision making process. For students facing suspension, expulsion or findings that affect a professional qualification, these failures can be life changing and students should not feel obliged to accept an unfair outcome.
Judicial scrutiny of university disciplinary processes
The courts frequently recognise where universities fall short. In AB v XYZ, a student twice succeeded in challenging his university’s approach to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings arising from an allegation of sexual assault. The university’s investigation was conducted under its own disciplinary regulations and sexual misconduct policy. These were contractual in nature and expressly required the observance of natural justice at each stage.
The student was first denied a right of legal representation. The court first held (in [2020] EWHC 2978 (QB)) that, although there is no automatic right to legal representation in disciplinary proceedings, fairness may require it where allegations are particularly serious, and this was such a case. The court held that it was important that the complainant be questioned as there was a need for her evidence to be tested.
A further hearing was therefore convened by the disciplinary committee, with the student represented, but the complainant then did not attend. The committee admitted the complainant’s evidence despite her absence even though this meant there was no opportunity to question her account. It then found the allegation proven. The court held (in [2023] EWHC 1162 (KB)) that this approach was unfair. In the circumstances, effective testing of the evidence was essential, and admitting and relying on it without the complainant’s attendance amounted both to a breach of contract and to a violation of the rules of natural justice. The court declared that the committee’s decision was to have no effect.
Equality, wellbeing and the consequences of rigid procedures
The course a university chooses can shape a student’s future. That reality is starkly illustrated by the tragic case of R (Abrahart) v University of Bristol [2024] EWHC 299 (KB). Ms Abrahart, an undergraduate student, took her own life on the day she was due to give an oral presentation. It was alleged that, by failing to adjust the requirement for oral assessments in the light of her mental health condition, the University had discriminated against her because of her disability.
The High Court upheld the claims under the Equality Act 2010. However, on appeal the court found it unnecessary to determine whether a common law duty of care existed here, because the Equality Act findings were sufficient to dispose of the case. This decision highlights the importance for universities to ensure that their policies and procedures are properly applied, particularly where issues of disability and vulnerability arise.
Negligence claims and academic standards
However, the courts have not ruled out negligence-based claims against universities. For example, in Faiz Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 184 (QB), the High Court considered a claim in negligence arising from alleged inadequacies in university teaching. Mr Siddiqui, a former undergraduate at the University of Oxford, argued that the teaching he received on his course was so deficient that it caused him to achieve a lower degree classification, with consequential loss.
The court accepted in principle that a university may owe its students a duty of care in the provision of teaching, rejecting the argument that such claims were inherently non‑justiciable. However, the claim failed as the facts did not establish a breach of that duty. The teaching provided did not fall below the standard reasonably to be expected of a university of that kind.
Challenging unfair outcomes
With the right legal support, students can challenge flawed decisions, hold universities to account and seek outcomes that are fair, proportionate and lawful. Early legal advice can be critical in identifying procedural failures, preserving rights and determining the most effective route to redress. Students should not feel compelled to accept defective or unjust outcomes because meaningful legal remedies may be available where university discipline goes wrong.
Clarke Willmott advises clients in respect of claims against universities and other professionals. If you would like further information or to discuss a potential dispute of this nature, please contact Louise Goodwin.