Alajmi v Macquarie University

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.