RAR v. A University
[2017] CSIH 11
In the Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division
Case Number P833/11
Before Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian, Lord Bracadale, and Lord Glennie
Decided on February 10, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Appeal seeking a reduction in the documentation required by the University to decide on misconduct and suspension proceedings

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (Article 6, 8)
• Data Protection Act 1998 (Section 10)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner accepted an offer from the University’s College in the School of Clinical Sciences and Community Health to study for a PhD in genetic epidemiology for 36 months in 2005.
• She proceeded well with her studies, but matters took a turn in 2008, and her relations with the University members deteriorated.
• The University listed her name as a joint author in a medical journal for her research project. Later, she emailed them about her medical issue for not coming to the department.
• She also filed a formal complaint at the university against several individuals alleging racial and sexual discrimination.
• She took retrospective interruption from her studies for a year at the University. Further, she took three months’ leave in May 2009 but asked to join again in June, which the University did not allow.
• She started emailing staff and colleagues about the university, causing her distress. The University suspended her computing access and took the matter under the University’s Code of Student Discipline.
• The University also declined her registration in 2009/10. In April 2011, the petitioner and her husband approached the university to ask about the possibility of re-enrolment, which they denied.
• Thus, the petitioner approached the court, challenging the university’s decisions.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The petitioner submitted that:
  • The University had no power to demand medical evidence for her return to studies, and they should allow her to continue her PhD.
  • The University should not register the suspension decision for the academic year 2009/10 as they are of no current significance.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the court should not grant any remedies the petitioner sought.

Opinion of the Bench

• The University can allow the petitioner to re-enrol and complete her PhD per the University’s Rules.

Final Decision

• The court granted a declarator with terms and disposed of the petition.