Naik v Monash University - [2018] VSC 605

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2018 02530

CHINMAY NAIK	Plaintiff
v
MONASH UNIVERSITY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 October 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Naik v Monash University
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 605

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Assessment decision of University – Application for extension of time to commence proceedings for judicial review – Whether ‘special circumstances’ – Whether Court can review questions of academic judgment – Whether alleged failure to follow relevant policy is jurisdictional error – No arguable case – Public interest in finality of decisions – Extension of time refused - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 56.02 (1) and (3).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Ms E Latif	Clayton Utz

HER HONOUR:

Chinmay Naik is a student at Monash University, where he is enrolled in a Masters of Journalism. He has nearly completed his degree. However, on 26 June 2017 Mr Naik was awarded a fail grade for the subject APG5135 Video Journalism, having been awarded a mark of 21% for an assessment task involving a video current affairs story.

By an originating motion for judicial review filed on 29 June 2018 Mr Naik seeks an order in the nature of mandamus granting exemption from the result of that assessment task, and declaring an overall pass grade in APG5135 Video Journalism and completion of the Masters of Journalism course. He also seeks any other order that the Court deems appropriate to do justice between the parties.

There is a 60-day time limit for commencing a proceeding for judicial review, and the Court may extend time only in special circumstances.[1] So, when he commenced this proceeding on 29 June 2018, Mr Naik also applied by summons for an extension of time in which to commence the proceeding. The University opposes this application.
[1]Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Rules), r 56.02(1), (3).

For its part, the University filed a summons on 7 August 2018 seeking summary judgment under s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The University first foreshadowed that application at a directions hearing before me on 17 July 2018. On that day I made directions for the hearing of Mr Naik’s application for an extension of time, and for the University’s summary judgment application, and listed both applications for hearing on 17 September 2018.

For the reasons that follow I have decided not to grant an extension of time. This means that the proceeding must be dismissed, and it is therefore not necessary to determine the summary judgment application.

Factual background

Mr Naik has been a student of Monash University since July 2016. He is enrolled in the course A6008 Masters of Journalism. As an overseas student he is a temporary resident of Australia on a…

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 Naik v Monash 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: [2018] VSC 605
Decision Date: 12 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in Naik v Monash University sought judicial review of an administrative decision made by the respondent, Monash University, concerning an assessment outcome. The application for an extension of time to commence the judicial review proceedings was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant argued that the University's decision was made in breach of its own policy and that the Court should review the academic judgment exercised by the University. Additionally, the applicant contended that the failure to follow the relevant policy constituted a jurisdictional error.

The court considered whether the applicant had established special circumstances justifying an extension of time, as required by the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The court also examined the scope of judicial review in relation to academic judgments and whether the alleged failure to follow policy constituted a jurisdictional error. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated special circumstances warranting an extension of time. Furthermore, the court found that it would not intervene in the academic judgment of the University, and the alleged policy breach did not amount to a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.

The court emphasised the public interest in the finality of academic decisions and the importance of adhering to procedural rules in judicial review proceedings. The court concluded that the applicant had not established an arguable case for judicial review, and therefore, the application was dismissed. The court did not grant the extension of time sought by the applicant, and no further orders were made in relation to the substantive merits of the case.

Orders