Judgment For University In Claim By Student

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28658, 7 August 1958, Page 18

Judgment For University In Claim By Student

(New Zealand Press Association) DUNEDIN, August 6. Judgment for the defendant, the University of Otago, was entered by Mr Justice Henry in a reserved judgment today. The plaintiff, Alister Stephen Falla, a Christchurch medical student, had applied for a writ of mandamus to be re-admitted to the University’s medical school’s second-year course. His Honour had reserved his decision after the hearing on July 18. After stating today that the motion would be refused, his Honour said costs would be awarded to the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff, according to scale on an action for £5OO, together with Court disbursements.

Mr J. C. Robertson represented the university and Mr E. P. Wills appeared for Falla.

His Honour said the motion for the issue of the writ raised a question of great importance and, in particular, could require a declaration of the right of the University of Otago to exclude students from the various courses provided in its syllabus. “Indeed, so wide was the claim of the plaintiff’s counsel in the early part of his argument, that it seemed likely that the point might not be one for the decision of the Court unless the AttorneyGeneral were joined to represent the public. “It is, I think, trite law that to succeed, plaintiff must show first that he has a right to have the particular thing done, and second, that there is an obliga-

tion on the defendant to do it’’ Dealing briefly with the facts, his Honour said the plaintiff matriculated at Canterbury University College, and there passed the medical intermediate examination. As a result, he was ad-

mitted to the classes of the medical school. During the years 1956 and 1957 he attended those classes on anatomy, physiology and bio-chemistry. “Before any student is permitted to sit for the examination which is held to determine his fitness to be credited with a pass in any subject towards the gaining of a degree, he must ‘keep terms’ in that subject,’’ said the judgment. “Plaintiff failed to keep terms for the years 1956 and 1957. He was thereafter excluded from attendance at the classes for tne present year. The professorial board recommended the exclusion of plaintiff. This exclusion was approved by the council and put into effect. “There were representations made by the plaintiff asking that the decision to exclude him should be reconsidered and reversed, but he was unsuccessful in his attempts to gain readmission to the classes for the present year. “Plaintiff seeks the aid of the Court to order defendant to accept him as a student to the classes so that he might keep terms and thus be enabled, if successful, to sit examinations at the end of the year.’’ “Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed an order that he should be allowed to enter and sit for the annual terms examination •without attending classes during the present year.’’ His Honour said there was 'no evidence upon which it could

be properly said that either the professorial board or the council > failed in its duty to hear, and determine, the question of whether or not plaintiff should be excluded. Plaintiff admittedly did so fail his examinations, and therefore came clearly within the exclusion statute. “The claim that plaintiff had been denied what is commonly known as common justice was much canvassed at the Bar. The remedy, if any, in such an event appears to be certiorari to quash the decision arrived at, and if necessary, mandamus to compel a proper hearing. “Certiorari was not claimed, nor was this ground pleaded as a matter for relief. Since, however, it was pressed at the hear-

ing, I desire to express the view that I can find no ground for saying that the requirements of natural justice have not been observed.

“On the contrary, I am satisfied that anxious and careful consideration was given to all matters.

“Neither the reasons for, nor the correctness of, such a decision are examinable in this Court, so long as a party had a proper opportunity to present his case,’’ his Honour said.