HEARING DATE 18 March 1966
University - Examination - Conferring of degrees - Alleged misjudging of degree candidate's examination papers - Matter one for visitor of university - Action by candidate for alleged negligence and for mandamus - No jurisdiction in High Court.
HEADNOTE
The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear complaints by a member of London University, or by a person seeking a degree from the university, against the university about its examinations or conferment of degrees, because those matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor of the university.
Thomson v. London University ((1864), 33 L.J. Ch. 625) and R. v. Dunsheath, Ex p. Meredith ([1950] 2 All E.R. 741) approved.
NOTES
As to non-interference by the High Court in matters within the province of the visitor of a university, see 13 HALSBURY'S LAWS (3rd Edn.) 709, para. 1445, text and note (0); and for cases on the subject, see 11 DIGEST (Repl.) 654, 655, 316-321 and also Sammy v. Birkbeck College, The Times, May 20, 1965, p. 6.
CASES REFERRED TO
R. v. Dunsheath, Ex p. Meredith, [1950] 2 All E.R. 741; [1951] 1 K.B. 127; 8
Digest (Repl.) 504, 2258.
Thomson v. London University, (1864), 33 L.J.Ch. 625; 10 L.T. 403; 8 Digest
(Repl.) 505, 2265.
INTRODUCTION
Application for leave to appeal. This was an application on notice dated Feb. 25, 1966, by Dr. Carl-Theo Thorne, the plaintiff in an action against University of London, for leave to appeal out of time from an order of JOHN STEPHENSON, J., made in chambers on Jan. 26, 1966, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from an order of Master CLAYTON, dated Nov. 26, 1965, ordering that the writ and statement of claim be struck out under R.S.C., Ord. 18, r. 19, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the ground that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, and that the plaintiff's action be dismissed. The facts are set out in the judgment of DIPLOCK, L.J.
COUNSEL
The plaintiff appeared in person.
Brian T. Neill, for the defendant
university, was not called on.
PANEL: Diplock and Salmon, L.JJ.
JUDGMENT BY DIPLOCK, L.J.
This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of STEPHENSON, J., striking out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim and dismissing the action which he brought against the University of London, the defendant. The endorsement on the writ reads as follows:
"The plaintiff's claim is for damages for negligently misjudging the plaintiff's examination papers for the Intermediate and Finals LL.B. and for a mandamus commanding the defendant to award the plaintiff the grade at least justified."
In his statement of claim the plaintiff sets out a good deal of praise of his ability as a lawyer. He goes on to say that he sat for some examinations in the London LL.B. examination, papers in criminal law, the law of trusts and the law of evidence, and that he received notice that he had failed in the papers for trusts and criminal law; and he claims that that was a result of negligence on the part of the examiners.
There is clear and recent authority in R. v. Dunsheath, Ex p. Meredith [1950] 2 All E.R. 741; [1951] 1 K.B. 127 that actions of this kind relating to domestic disputes between members of London University (as is the case with other universities) are matters which are to be dealt with by the visitor and the court has no jurisdiction to deal with them. In that case, which was a decision of the Divisional Court, LORD GODDARD, C.J., referred with approval to Thomson v. London University [1950] 2 All E.R. 741; [1951] 1 K.B. 127, which was decided in 1864. That was another case in which a budding lawyer complained about what had happened to him in the examinations held by the university, and there is a passage at p. 634 in the judgment of KINDERSLEY, V.-C., which covers exactly the sort of claim which the plaintiff has put forward in this case. KINDERSLEY, V.-C., said this:
"The holding of examinations and the conferring of degrees being one, if not the main or only object of this university, all the regulations, that is, the construction of all the regulations and the carrying into effect of all those regulations as among persons who are either actually members of the university or who come in and subject themselves to be at least pro hac vice members of the university - I mean with respect to the degrees which they seek to have conferred upon them - all those are regulations of the domus; they are regulations clearly in my mind coming within the jurisdiction, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor."Those words, which were approved in R. v. Dunsheath [1950] 2 All E.R. 741; [1951] 1 K.B. 127, cover precisely the sort of claim which the plaintiff seeks to bring before the High Court in this action. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal from university examiners; and, speaking for my own part, I am very glad that it declines this jurisdiction. Clearly it does decline the jurisdiction.
The action was wholly misconceived, and the decision of the learned judge to strike out the endorsement on the writ and the statement of claim and to dismiss the action was clearly right.
JUDGMENT BY SALMON, L.J.
I agree.
DISPOSITION
Application dismissed.
SOLICITORS
Coward, Chance & Co. (for the defendant, the university).