The Court of Appeal allowed appeals by the State Examinations Commission (SEC) and the Minister for Education and Skills against parts of a High Court judgment concerning a student’s Leaving Certificate results and admission to veterinary medicine at University College Dublin (UCD).
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McGovern on 29 May 2019, set aside the High Court’s findings that the student’s constitutional rights were engaged by the admissions process and that the SEC’s appeals system should be assessed for proportionality. The appeal court did not decide whether a constitutional right of access to higher education exists. It said the issue had not been claimed by the student and the parties who should have been heard on it were not before the court.
The student received 554 points in 2018, one below the 555 points required after the second round of offers for UCD veterinary medicine. On reviewing her scripts, she identified what the judgment describes as a computation error in her business paper mark. The SEC treated the alleged error as outside the clerical rectification process, requiring her to use the formal appeal process. Its result was due in mid-October, after UCD’s 30 September admission cut-off.
The High Court ordered the SEC to determine the appeal by 28 September 2018 and notify the student, the CAO and UCD. It also directed the CAO to notify the student and UCD of any offer by that evening and, if accepted, required UCD to facilitate her admission before 1 October. The student was admitted to the course after the academic year had begun. The appellants did not challenge the part of the order that secured her place, and the appeal court said its decision would not affect her status as a student.
The appeal court held that the High Court judge had erred by making a finding on a constitutional right that had not been pleaded, after the student declined an invitation to amend her case to raise it. The Minister had already been released from the proceedings when the issue arose and had no notice of it. The court also said the SEC was not responsible for UCD’s admission deadlines and had not been told that UCD had changed its cut-off date that year.
The court held that the SEC’s system should be reviewed against a rationality standard, not proportionality, and found no evidence that it had acted irrationally. It allowed the Minister’s appeal on the constitutional-right finding and the SEC’s appeal on the proportionality and relevant-considerations findings. It directed that the other High Court findings be set aside and declined to send the case back for further consideration.