STUDENT CLAIMS £450

Grey River Argus, 28 August 1946, Page 7

STUDENT CLAIMS £450

FROM COLLEGE Negligence Alleged WELLINGTON Aug. 27. A former student of Wellington College, James lan McLean, who now is a farmhand at Marton (who is suing by his father William Theodore McLean, fitter and turner, of Wellington) was the plaintiff to-day in an unusual action before Mr Justice Johnston, and a jury of four in the Supreme Court. The defendants in the case, from whom £450 damages are claimed, were James Hall, a master of the Wellington College, and the governors of the Wellington College and of the Girls’ High School. Mr R. E. Tripe appeared for the plaintiff. Mr T. C. A. Hislop, with him Mr J - . W. P. Watts, appeared for the defendants. The statement of claim alleged that during 1945, the defendant Hall, was the plaintiffs’ form master. In 1944 the plaintiff sat for the School Certificate examination, and he passed in geography, French, arithmetic, algebra, geometry and chemistry, but he failed in English, a subject in which it was compulsory for him to pass so as to be credited with a pass in the whole examination. He was, however, granted a partial pass. Under the rules of the Statutes of the University of New Zealand, it was necessary for the plaintiff to matrix culate so as to complete his School Certificate by passing in English, and to pass in three University Entrance examination subjects, and two School Certificate subjects, including English.

The entry forms for the examination in 1945 were, it was further alleged, provided for the plaintiff by the Board of Governors, through Hall, and were filled in by the plaintiff, under Hall’s supervision and advice. The plaintiff entered his name as sitting for three University Entrance subjects—mathematics, chemistry and French —and two School Certificate subjects—English and geography. He, nevertheless was informed, by Hall, that it was not necessary for him for the purposes of the University Entrance examination, to sit for any School Certificate subject other than English. The board collected fees totalling £2 12s for the three entrance subjects, and one Certificate subject. The plaintiff claimed that the board had failed either by itself or by its servant, E. N. Hogben, the headmaster, to check the records or the facts to ensure that the plaintiff sat for the correct number and/or classification of subjects for the University Entrance examination. The plaintiff passed in the four subjects for which he had been advised Io sit, but he was not credited with having passed the examination, because he failed to sit and to pass in i.wo School Certificate subjects. He was, thereby, prevented from attending at the University to study and to qualify in his chosen profession of veterinary surgeon, or in any other profession or calling requiring a pass in the University Entrance examination, or matriculation. He had, also, lost the benefit of a year’s intensive study. On the grounds that Hall and the board, by itself, or through the headmaster, had been negligent, the plaintiff claimed £450 damages from the defendants, and the recovrey of £1 12s paid in fees. The defence was that Hall was the form master of the plaintiff in mathematics and science only in 1945, and it was denied that the entry form had been filled in under Hall’s supervision and advice, or that he had informed the plaintiff that it was not necessary to sit for any School Certificate subject other than English. It was claimed that all reasonable steps had been taken to enable the pupils to understand the requirements of the examination, and to complete the form properly. The distribution, or collection, of the examination forms to and from the students was undertaken by the defendants at the request, and on behalf of, the University of New Zealand and the Education Department, for the convenience of all concerned, this being the practice throughout New Zealand. The only responsibility taken by defendants was the distribution and the collection of the forms and the fees. The forms set. out clearly the subjects for, and the conditions of,, each examination, and if the plaintiff had failed to fill in his form correctly, or lo sit for any subject, such omission was due solely to his own negligence.