AB v University of XYZ

Factual and Procedural Background

On 16 December 2019, the Plaintiff was expelled from Company A (the University) following a finding of sexual misconduct established at a disciplinary hearing held on 12 November 2019, which the Plaintiff did not attend. At the time, the Plaintiff was a final year student expected to graduate in June 2020. The Plaintiff sought an interim mandatory injunction to return to the University to continue his studies pending further court order.

The Plaintiff challenged the University's jurisdiction to investigate, determine, and sanction the complaint, arguing that the University lacked contractual authority to do so and that he was entitled to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing due to the seriousness of the allegations and potential impact on his career.

An anonymity order was granted for both parties. The disciplinary process involved an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct occurring during the Plaintiff's Erasmus exchange placement at University B in Europe in November 2018. The Plaintiff and the Complainant gave conflicting accounts of the events. The University conducted an investigation and convened a Disciplinary Committee which found the allegation proven and expelled the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff initiated proceedings seeking declaratory relief that the University breached implied contractual terms of fairness and natural justice and sought injunctions to prevent or reverse the disciplinary process. The application for a mandatory injunction was amended during the proceedings, and the hearing was adjourned accordingly. The University filed a defence and witness statements were exchanged.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the University had contractual jurisdiction to investigate and determine the complaint of sexual misconduct against the Plaintiff.
2. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing under the implied contractual terms of fairness and natural justice.
3. Whether the procedural irregularity arising from reliance on the wrong version of University regulations amounted to a serious breach of contract.
4. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the Plaintiff if excluded from studies.
5. Where the balance of convenience lies regarding the grant of a mandatory interim injunction compelling the Plaintiff's return to the University.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Sexual Misconduct Policy was not in force at the time of the alleged misconduct and thus the University lacked jurisdiction to proceed under it.
• The alleged misconduct did not fall within the scope of the relevant University regulation in force at the time (Regulation 23, October 2018) or the Study Abroad Student Protocol.
• The Plaintiff was entitled to make written representations before the disciplinary hearing and to legal representation during the hearing due to the seriousness of the allegation and its impact on his career.
• The University unilaterally varied the contract by introducing the Sexual Misconduct Policy after the alleged incident to circumvent contractual limitations.
• Damages would not be an adequate remedy because exclusion from studies would cause loss of graduation opportunity and career disruption.
• The balance of convenience favors granting the injunction as it would not determine the substantive dispute and would allow the Plaintiff to continue his studies pending resolution.

University's Arguments

• The definition of misconduct and jurisdiction under Regulation 23 (October 2018) included sexual misconduct, and the Plaintiff was bound by the Study Abroad Student Protocol, which gave the University jurisdiction.
• The Sexual Misconduct Policy was introduced following an independent review and was not an attempt to circumvent contractual rights.
• The University complied with the rules of natural justice except for two minor points; the Plaintiff had opportunity to respond during investigation and hearing, and legal representation is not a universal right in internal disciplinary proceedings.
• Damages would be an adequate remedy for any financial loss suffered by the Plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff’s delay in seeking injunctions and failure to attend disciplinary hearings severely weakened his case.
• The balance of convenience favors the University because granting the injunction would risk safety, wellbeing, financial loss, reputational damage, and undermine the disciplinary process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first determined which version of Regulation 23 applied at the time of the alleged misconduct. It concluded that Regulation 23 (October 2018) was the relevant regulation as the later version and the Sexual Misconduct Policy came into force almost a year after the incident and were not intended to have retrospective effect. The court found it strongly arguable that the earlier regulation governed the disciplinary process.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the alleged sexual misconduct fell outside the University’s jurisdiction. The regulation’s definition of misconduct included improper interference with the institution’s activities “on or off University premises,” and sexual misconduct was explicitly a major offence. The University’s regulatory obligations, including those imposed by the Office for Students, justified investigation of the complaint regardless of the location or status of the Complainant.

The court found that the complaint fell within the Study Abroad Student Protocol, which the Plaintiff had contractually agreed to and which imposed standards of behaviour appropriate to representatives of the University.

Although the University proceeded under the wrong version of Regulation 23 and referenced the Sexual Misconduct Policy, the court found this procedural irregularity minor and insufficient to amount to a breach of contract. The procedures followed were substantially similar to those that would have applied under the correct regulation.

Regarding the implied terms of fairness and natural justice, the court acknowledged the implied contractual term that decision-making would be exercised fairly. However, it rejected the Plaintiff’s submission that he was entitled to an intermediate stage of written representations prior to the disciplinary hearing. The court accepted that the Plaintiff had opportunities to respond during the investigation and hearing stages.

The critical issue was the Plaintiff’s entitlement to legal representation. The court recognized that legal representation is not a universal right in internal disciplinary proceedings and depends on the hearing's nature and complexity. The Plaintiff’s case was distinguished from precedent cases by the likelihood that issues of consent and cross-examination would require some legal expertise. The court found this was the only serious issue to be tried.

In assessing damages, the court found that while damages could compensate financial loss, they would not fully address the disruption to the Plaintiff’s life. However, damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party given the circumstances.

On balance of convenience, the court weighed the clear and immediate adverse consequences for the Plaintiff if excluded against the potential risks to the University’s community, finances, reputation, and disciplinary process if the injunction were granted. The Plaintiff’s delay in seeking interim relief and failure to attend hearings undermined his case. The court concluded that the risk of injustice from granting the mandatory injunction outweighed the risk from refusing it.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s application for a mandatory interim injunction compelling his return to the University to continue his studies pending the outcome of the substantive claim.

The decision maintains the status quo of the Plaintiff’s exclusion from the University. The Plaintiff’s substantive claim remains to be determined, and the disciplinary hearing may have to be re-run if the Plaintiff succeeds. No new precedent was established; the ruling reflects a careful balancing of contractual principles, procedural fairness, and interim relief criteria.