Legal Research
Cases
Alajmi v Macquarie University

Alajmi v Macquarie University

Link copied

Case Copied 15 August 2019 71 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alajmi v Macquarie University [2019] NSWSC 1026
Hearing dates: 4-5 June 2019
Date of orders: 15 August 2019
Decision date: 15 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne J
Decision:
(1) Summons dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendant as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – reviewability – justiciability – subject matter of power or decision – matter of academic judgement – decision by a university thesis supervisor not to certify that a doctoral thesis met the University’s preparation requirement that the thesis was the student’s “own work” – findings of an investigatory panel into allegations of plagiarism against the student taken into account – not an exercise of public power – impermissible merits review

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – legal unreasonableness – whether the “non-certification decision” and the panel’s findings were legally unreasonable – Briginshaw standard did not apply – inferences made were reasonably open and logically available – not legally unreasonable – no irrelevant consideration – no apprehended bias – no impermissible fetter of discretion or subjugation of state of satisfaction

CONTRACTS – implied terms – parties agreed to be bound by the University’s By-laws and Rules – no term that the parties also agreed to be bound by the University’s Code, Policy and Procedure should be implied

CONTRACTS – legal unreasonableness – alleged failure to exercise a unilateral contractual discretion reasonably – “non-certification decision” not legally unreasonable

ESTOPPEL – estoppel by convention – mutual assumption – assumptions not supported by the evidence
ESTOPPEL – estoppel by representation – detrimental reliance – representations not made – representations not relied upon
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 57, 136
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 42
Macquarie University Act 1989 (NSW), ss 4-6, 20, 28-29
Macquarie University By-Law 2005 (NSW), by-law 35
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 23, 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.10
Cases Cited: Agricultural Societies Council of NSW v Christie [2016] NSWCA 331; 340 ALR 560
Amaba Pty Ltd (Under NSW Administered Winding Up) v Booth; Amaca Pty Ltd (Under NSW Administered Winding Up) v Booth [2010] NSWCA 344
Amos v Western New South Wales Local Health District [2016] NSWSC 1162
Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2; 80 ALJR 497
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Attorney-General for the States of New South Wales v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1; [1990] HCA 21
Ballina Shire Council v Knapp [2019] NSWCA 146
Bartlett v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 639; [2016] NSWCA 30
Bezer v Basan [2017] NSWCA 333
Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 1661
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34
Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768
Chan v Sellwood [2009] NSWSC 1335
Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393; [2010] NSWCA 190
Clark v University…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alajmi v Macquarie University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWSC 1026
Decision Date: 15 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alajmi v Macquarie University concerned a doctoral student who was found to have engaged in plagiarism. The student's thesis supervisor decided not to certify that the student's thesis met the university's requirement that the thesis be the student's "own work." This decision was made after considering the findings of an investigatory panel into allegations of plagiarism against the student. The student sought judicial review of the decision, claiming it was legally unreasonable and in breach of contract.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the university's decision not to certify the thesis was justiciable and whether it was legally unreasonable. The court also considered whether the decision was in breach of contract and whether it could be challenged on the basis of estoppel. The court had to determine whether the university's decision not to certify the thesis was an exercise of public power and therefore reviewable, or whether it was a matter of academic judgment outside the scope of judicial review.

The court found that the university's decision not to certify the thesis was not an exercise of public power, and therefore not justiciable. The court also found that the decision was not legally unreasonable, as the inferences made were reasonably open and logically available. The court held that the university had not acted in an legally unreasonable manner, as there was no irrelevant consideration, apprehended bias, or impermissible fetter of discretion. The court also found that there was no term that the parties agreed to be bound by the university's Code, Policy and Procedure should be implied. Finally, the court held that there was no estoppel by convention or estoppel by representation, as the assumptions and representations relied upon by the student were not supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the student's claim for judicial review. The court held that the university's decision not to certify the thesis was not an exercise of public power and therefore not justiciable. The court also found that the decision was not legally unreasonable and did not breach the terms of the contract or give rise to estoppel. The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders