Battison v Melloy - [2014] NZHC 1462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CIV-2014-441-000061 [2014] NZHC 1462

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the Bylaws Act 1910

IN THE MATTER

of a Judicial Review of a decision to suspend a student of St John's College, Hastings and a challenge to a school bylaw

BETWEEN

LUCAN WESLEY BATTISON suing by his Litigation Guardian TROY PATRICK BATTISON

Plaintiff

AND

PAUL MELLOY First Defendant

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE

Second Defendant

Hearing: 23 June 2014 (at Wellington)

Counsel:

J L Bates and N E H Logan for Plaintiff
R M Harrison for Defendants

Judgment:

27 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Lucan Battison (Lucan)1 was suspended from St John’s College, Hastings

(the School) for failing to comply with requests from the School’s principal

(Mr Melloy) that Lucan cut his hair. Lucan has been told by the School’s Board that

1 Because Lucan is 16 he needs a litigation guardian. I have appointed his father, Mr Battison,
Lucan’s litigation guardian pursuant to the High Court Rules, r 4.27(c).

BATTISON v MELLOY [2014] NZHC 1462 [27 June 2014]

he can return to the School if he cuts his hair to comply with the School’s hair rule,

which provides that the students’ uniform is to include:

hair that is short, tidy and of natural colour. Hair must be off the collar and out of the eyes. (Extremes, including plaits, dreads and mohawks are not acceptable).

Lucan has also been told by the Board that his hair must be cut to the satisfaction of

Mr Melloy as a condition to him returning to the School.

[2] Three general issues arise from this proceeding:

(1)
the lawfulness of the disciplinary action the School took against

Lucan;

(2)

the lawfulness of the School’s hair rule; and

(3)

the lawfulness of schools’ rules that attempt to regulate a student’s

hair.

[3]

In t

is judgment I only need reach conclusions in relation to the first two

h general issues.

[4] I have concluded that the decisions suspending Lucan were unlawful because they did not comply with s 14(1)(a) of the Education Act 1989 (the Act) which provides that a student can be suspended by a principal if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the student’s gross misconduct or continual disobedience is a harmful or dangerous example to other students at the school. I have also concluded that the conditions imposed on Lucan’s return to the School by the Board were unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.

[5] Because the lawfulness of the hair rule may prove to be a contentious issue for the School and Lucan, I have also concluded the School’s hair rule is unlawful because it breaches the common law requirement that rules, such as the hair rule, be certain.

[6] I am therefore granting Lucan’s application for judicial review and I am issuing declarations that reflect the conclusions I have summarised in paragraphs [4]- [5] of this judgment.

[7] To assist…

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 Battison v Melloy

Details

AGLC: Battison v Melloy [2014] NZHC 1462
Case: [2014] NZHC 1462
Decision Date: 27 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Napier Registry, Lucan Battison, a student at St John's College, Hastings, sought judicial review of his suspension and the lawfulness of the school's hair rule. The court held that the decisions suspending Lucan were unlawful because they did not comply with s 14(1)(a) of the Education Act 1989, which requires the principal to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the student's gross misconduct or continual disobedience is a harmful or dangerous example to other students at the school. The court also found that the conditions imposed on Lucan's return to the school by the Board were unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, the court concluded that the school's hair rule is unlawful because it breaches the common law requirement that rules, such as the hair rule, be certain. The court issued declarations that reflect these conclusions and granted Lucan's application for judicial review.

Orders