The High Court has refused a former Dublin City University PhD student’s application to quash decisions finding him unsuitable to continue his studies after his academic supervisors raised concerns about his progress.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2015, Mr Justice Noonan held that the decisions were not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances. He said the student’s relationship with the university was governed by contract and that the case concerned academic judgment, rather than a disciplinary decision.
The student began a PhD project in biotherapeutics for chronic pain at DCU’s International Centre for Neurotherapeutics in 2012. In May 2013, his supervisors signed a postgraduate progress report recommending that he not continue. The report cited concerns about his theoretical knowledge, experimental skills, research presentations, English, timekeeping and interactions with colleagues. Those were the supervisors’ assessments, as recorded in the report.
The student had alleged shortcomings in his training and supervision. He appealed, arguing in part that the supervisory panel had not been properly constituted under university regulations and that the decision came before the end of the academic year. The university conceded that the panel was technically not correctly constituted, while arguing that this had not affected the outcome.
The Graduate Research Studies Board rejected the appeal in October 2013. It accepted that the student did not have a properly constituted panel but found the defect was not material to the negative progression recommendation. It also considered the period of research sufficient to assess his suitability and rejected his claim of a material assessment error.
Mr Justice Noonan said there was not a sufficiently public element to the relationship to justify court intervention. He considered the case more akin to earlier cases about academic decisions than cases involving public functions or student discipline. He also said the panel defect was not material to the academic judgment, as the Board had found, and that the timing of the decision was for the academic bodies to assess.
The judge added that, even if the decisions were reviewable, the Board had considered the two issues raised and the student had made no criticism of its decision. The court therefore refused the judicial review application. The judgment does not quash either the May 2013 report or the Board’s October 2013 decision.