Solicitors specialising in University Law are these days inundated with enquiries by new student clients who are often prepared to bring court proceedings when they might have been ill treated by their colleges or Universities. The news this week reported that in England average student debt for a person leaving an undergraduate course is approximately £44,000, something which, according to the higher education law team at Sinclairslaw,often provokes "greater expectation among students that they will be fairly treated by their college or University". University law specialist Mr Michael Charles stated "with increasing student fees, and financial commitment students can often be more prepared to hold a University to account for failing to properly comply with contractual obligations" University law has long established that the relationship between a student and their college is founded in contract. The basic terms are that the University will apply it's rules, subject to implied terms of fairness and reasonableness. "Many students expect that where a circumstance not precisely covered by internal regulation but nevertheless demands a discretionary decision, that the University will be fair and supportive in its decision. If they fail to exercise discretion fairly perhaps in the approach to an examination result or upon a students claim that they had been impaired by mitigating circumstances, students are undoubtedly increasingly turning to the law for redress." Mr Charles added. However sadly not all Universities approach cases in the same way. A number of establishments are being strict in their interpretation of their own rules believing that discretion is accordingly fettered by strict interpretation of internal regulations. Mr Charles, the Sinclairslaw CEO and specialist solicitor in University Law added "Sadly a small number of Universities appear to believe that the perils of everyday life or even legal expectation should not influence their decision making. Sadly this often leads to poor decisions which the University may often seek to rely upon and seek assurance by the fact that the reviewing body (the Oia) which does not act as a court, will rarely if ever hear live evidence accordingly insulating them against court proceedings and rendering a student with particular difficulty if the case involves a need to resolve a conflict of facts. This is because a conflict in the facts is usually only capable of fair resolution by hearing live witnesses and assessing the truthfulness of accounts given. This requires an ability to question witnesses and often be afforded legal representation in the process." The Oia is a body set up by Act of Parliament to provide a mechanism for students to have their complaints resolved as an alternative to using the court. However it does not act as a court, and for example it will be a less effective forum if a student seeks to resolve a dispute as to the facts in a particular case. This is because, as a reviewing body it will rarely hear live evidence or resolve factual conflict as a court would rendering to some, a question mark as to whether in those circumstances the law should always treat the process as a true alternative remedy. Perhaps the matter was best highlighted by the court in a case known as "Maxwell". In that case the court ruled that the Oia was ill equipped to address matters in which disability discrimination is being alleged (now known as breaches of Equality and in particular the Equality Act 2010). In another recent example, a University made a career ending decision upon which the student argued was an entirely unsatisfactory reason, and reasons which would never satisfy the usual high standards of a judicial system in a normal court process, and which he argued was improperly explained could not expect the OIA to deliver the kind of robust properly reasoned decisions that the public would otherwise demand of a court of law. According to the Court, to which he eventually turned, the OIA provided a speedy and cost effective alternative to the Court and the hurdles to cross to prompt the court to interfere after utilising the OIA scheme were high. In that case the court recognised that the decision made by the particular University may be considered as "harsh", yet found that the court should be slow to interfere with a review of a review. Although the case involving that student will soon be decided by the Court of Appeal appeal which particularly if the student fails might once again highlight the courts limited expectation of Oia decison making. This in essence would mean that although students who may be fighting against, for example a finding that they were considered unfit to practice in their profession and be deprived by operation of University rules legal representation at the internal hearing and might even be denied an ability to cross examine key witnesses in the process, could not expect the Oia to act as a court would by applying the same procedural and legal safeguards applicable in a court. Ie legal representation, cross examination and rules against hearsay. According to Mr Charles any lesser expectation upon the OIA would in a climate of such "high expense and risk" only serve to encourage more students to turn to the courts first. The now leading case of Gopikrishna, represented by Mr Charles established clearly not only the courts approach to the academic immunity defence often relied upon by Universities but "more particularly perhaps the lengths that students will often be prepared to go through to achieve justice." Contrary to a myth which exists among students legal aid in certain circumstances may be available. Whilst legal aid does not extend to Oia appeals themselves or many money claims, it does cover cases in which a student might seek to judicially review a University or indeed the OIA, a step that ultimately becomes the last possible solution. When selecting a solicitor it is useful to find out if they can offer this service beyond the OIA stage. It is often considered far better to keep the case within the same firm as it allows for consistency of representation. Sinclairslaw allows you this assurance. If you are a student aggrieved by a decison made by your college or University you might feel rest assured to approach a specialist University law and Higher education law team that can provide a service that allows not only highly specialist representation from a firm with a long established and highly successful track record but the means to often see a case through to the courts via legal aid funding. Speak to one of our specialist University law team today on 0208 891 4488 Sinclairslaw Higher education law and education law specialists.