header-logo header-logo

17 January 2008
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Case law , Public , Profession , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Education

R (Siborurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education [2007] EWCA Civ 1365, [2007] All ER (D) 329 (Dec)

 

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education is amenable to judicial review. Lord Justice Pill (at paras 53 and 54) said that the OIA is able, when deciding whether or not particular complaints are justified, to exercise a discretion in determining how to approach the particular complaint. It is entitled to operate on the basis that different complaints may require different approaches.

 

In assessing whether a complaint has been approached in a lawful manner, the court will have regard to the expertise of the OIA, which in turn should have regard to the expertise of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) in question.

 

The OIA is entitled in most cases, if it sees fit, to take the HEI’s regulations and procedures as a starting point and to consider, when assessing a complaint, whether they have been complied with. The OIA is empowered to comment upon the reasonableness of those regulations and procedures and to conduct its own investigation into the facts underlying the complaint.

 

However, the OIA is not under a general obligation to re-hear the merits of the case made to the HEI, although there may be cases in which a decision as to whether a complaint is justified requires that course to be taken.

Issue: 7304 / Categories: Case law , Public , Profession , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll