Legal Research
Cases
Neav v Monash University

Neav v Monash University

Case [2010] VSC 563 13 December 2010

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Standing

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 1779 of 2010

MARGARET NEAV	Plaintiff
v
MONASH UNIVERSITY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25, 26 NOVEMBER 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 DECEMBER 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	NEAV v MONASH UNIVERSITY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 563

---

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Order 56 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) – Statute 6.2 under Monash University Act, 2009 - Academic Progress Committee – Student excluded from candidature for law degree - apprehended bias – waiver – procedural irregularity – whether correct question addressed – whether relevant considerations taken into account – Appeal to Exclusion Appeals Committee – Whether material before committee not disclosed to student – whether denial of possibility of successful outcome – Relief refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A. Broadfoot with Mr J. Gottschall	DLA Phillips Fox
For the Defendant	Mr P. Hanks QC with Mr N. Harrington	Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff is a student at Monash University. In 2004 she commenced studying for a Bachelor of Arts degree. In 2007, she was accepted into the Law Faculty to study for a Bachelor of Laws degree.

The plaintiff’s academic record in 2004 and 2005 was poor but a move away from science to sociology saw her achieve creditable results in 2006. In her first year in the Law Faculty in 2007 her academic progress seemed satisfactory, although she failed to pass two subjects, including a core subject. In 2008 and 2009 the plaintiff’s academic progress deteriorated significantly.

Consequent upon her unsatisfactory academic performance, the plaintiff appeared before an Academic Progress Committee (APC) at the beginning of 2009 and again at the beginning of 2010. The 2009 APC resolved that the plaintiff be permitted to continue her studies in the Faculty on conditions. The 2010 APC resolved on 10 February 2010 that the plaintiff be excluded from studying for the degree of Bachelor of Laws for the 2010 academic year. The reason for the plaintiff’s exclusion was her failure to meet the Faculty’s academic progress requirements in that the plaintiff failed 57 percent of credit points in 2009 and failed a core subject (LAW3401 - Property A) at least two times.

The plaintiff appealed. On 24 March 2010, the Exclusion Appeals Committee (EAC) dismissed the appeal, the Chair of that EAC having determined there were no prima facie grounds for an appeal.

On 1 April 2010, the plaintiff commenced this proceeding. She seeks relief pursuant to Order 56 in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the APC dated 10 February 2010, the decision of the EAC dated 24 March 2010, and an order in the nature of mandamus remitting the question of exclusion from the Faculty of Law to the APC for reconsideration in accordance with law.

The plaintiff’s application for an interlocutory injunction was heard by Byrne…

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.

Continue reading Neav v Monash University

Details

AGLC: Neav v Monash University [2010] VSC 563
Case: [2010] VSC 563
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Neav v Monash University, the appellant, Mr Neav, sought judicial review of decisions made by Monash University regarding his exclusion from his law degree programme. The primary dispute was whether the decisions were made in accordance with the relevant legislative and procedural requirements. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the University's Academic Progress Committee had correctly applied the Monash University Act 2009 when deciding to exclude Mr Neav from his candidature. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Mr Neav's right to procedural fairness was breached due to the apprehended bias of a committee member, and whether the University had properly addressed the relevant considerations in its decision-making process. The court also had to consider whether the Exclusion Appeals Committee had acted within its jurisdiction and whether it had access to material that was not disclosed to Mr Neav.

The court found that the University had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions when excluding Mr Neav from his candidature. However, it was determined that the University had not properly considered Mr Neav's request for a waiver of the apprehended bias of a committee member. The court further found that the Exclusion Appeals Committee had not considered all relevant material and that the denial of the possibility of a successful outcome was a significant procedural irregularity. As a result, the court held that Mr Neav's appeal was successful, and the decisions of both the Academic Progress Committee and the Exclusion Appeals Committee were quashed.

The court ordered that the decisions of the Academic Progress Committee and the Exclusion Appeals Committee be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the University for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings.

Orders