THES : Mr Wilkinson's lawywe will argue that the visitor is outdated, lacks independence and transparency and sufficient expertise'
Aston University faces a High
Court claim for more than £100,000 in damages next week from a former
PhD student who hopes to set a legal precedent and consign the quasi-judicial
visitor system to history.
Kevin Wilkinson
relocated his wife and two children from Dubai and left a well-paid job to
begin a PhD at Aston in 1997. But when he arrived in Birmingham, he found
there was no one properly qualified to supervise him as his agreed tutor had
left the university.
After a lengthy
dispute, Aston's vice-chancellor agreed that his experience was "far from
satisfactory", offered him an apology and repaid his fees. But Mr
Wilkinson is claiming damages for the wasted time and lost potential
earnings.
The case will initially hinge on whether the
courts will be prepared to hear the case, as Mr Wilkinson has refused to refer
his complaints to Aston's visitor - the queen.
Case law has
established that the visitor's jurisdiction is exclusive, and the courts have
usually refused to hear cases against universities with a visitor who in
practice is usually represented by the Privy Council or Lord
Chancellor's department. Mr Wilkinson is represented by trail-blazing education
lawyer, Jaswinder Gill, who will argue that the visitor system is outdated,
lacks independence and transparency, lacks sufficient expertise and is not
capable of providing Mr Wilkinson with the kind of remedy he
requires - compensation and damages.
With his argument
tacitly backed by the government, which plans to legislate to scrap the visitor next
year, he is hoping to set a legal precedent and ask the High Court to override
the visitor's jurisdiction.
Visitor admits failings
The number of students
complaining about their Universities to the Privy Council has rocketed sixfold
in the past five years, but the council has admitted it can provide only
"amateur justice".
Alex Galloway, clerk to the Privy Council. this week confirmed to the
THES that the Privy Council
received about 40 complaints a year in its capacity as the quasi-judicial visitor
to 17 universities, compared with half a dozen five years ago.
Mr Galloway said that about six complaints a year were upheld, but
"we have often included in adjudication criticisms of university systems
and suggested improvements".
He said the increased number of complaints was a result of increased
awareness, with the Privy Council becoming "more open about [its]
existence" and issuing guidance.
Although Mr Galloway said he had done much to improve the service to
students since he became clerk in 1998 - such as publishing the reasons for
judgments for the first time - he admitted that the visitor system still
provided only "amateur justice, at least as operated in this
office". Other visitors made greater use of professional legal input, but
the Privy Council does not have the resources and had a lot of other government
business that took up its time.
Mr
Galloway said the Privy Council supported government plans to set up a student complaints
ombudsman.
Problem with petition
A former medical student has accused the Privy Council
of trying to ignore his complaints against Sheffield University, where he
spent ten years attempting to qualify as a doctor.
Sushant
Varma listed his complaints against Sheffield in a petition to the Privy Council which
acts as the university's visitor. But although the Privy Council's guidelines
say that "there is no set format for a petition to the visitor", Dr
Varma's petition was rejected on the basis
that "it cannot be accepted in its
present form".
"I
was taken aback by the hostile nature of the letter," said Dr Varma, who recently
qualified as a doctor outside Sheffield. A revised petition sent in July has
not been acknowledged.
Privy Council clerk
Alex Galloway told the THES that he had not received the revised
petition and would request a copy. He said that the first version included
material outside the visitor's jurisdiction, contrary to the guidance
available, and that any "frankness" detected in the tone of his
letter was directed at Dr Varma's solicitor, whom he criticized for the way he
represented Dr Varma.
'There is no
question of barring access to the visitor," he added.
