AC-2024-LDS-000019 - [2025] EWHC 2940 (Admin)

On 10 June 2024 the Claimants’ claim was filed. He advanced three grounds of judicial review.

Ground 1 was to the effect that the University had acted in contravention of the HRA, section 6(1) in that it had breached his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These comprise, respectively, the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly and association.

Ground 1 also contended that the University’s actions were unlawful on the basis that by arbitrarily preventing the Claimant from taking part in the AGM and/or enabling the Union to do so, the University had breached the Education Act 1994, section 22(1). This requires a University to take “such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students’ union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner”.

Ground 2 argued that the University’s security staff had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely that the Claimant remained entitled to participate in the AGM, as Chair of the Student Council, Chair of the Student Executive Committee and a full member of the Union; and Charity Commission guidance indicating that those entitled to participate in charities’ general meetings cannot be prevented from doing so.

Ground 3 submitted that by preventing the Claimant from participating in the AGM without justification, the University acted irrationally in a Wednesbury sense.

On 9 July 2024 the University filed an Acknowledgment of Service, summary grounds for defending the claim and a bundle of supporting documents on 9 July 2024.

The University’s bundle included a witness statement from Simon Parker, the Defendant’s Facilities Services Manager. This confirmed the factual position I have outlined, namely that during the morning of 11 March 2024 the Union had requested that the University security team provide assistance at the AGM to ensure that the Claimant did not access it. Mr Parker’s statement also described the altercation that followed and the calling of the police.

The bundle also included evidence relating to the investigation of a complaint that the Claimant had made about his treatment on 11 March 2024 and the University’s Complaints Policy and Procedure.

No Acknowledgment of Service has been filed by the Union.

Under CPR 54.8A a Claimant may file a Reply, within 7 days of service of the Acknowledgment of Service.

Under the CPR PD 54.8A(1), a Reply should only be filed “if necessary for the purpose of the court’s decision to grant permission to apply for judicial review, for example, where a discrete issue not addressed in the Claim Form is raised in the Acknowledgement of Service”. It is emphasised that a Reply is not “the occasion to rehearse matters already referred to in the Claim Form”.

Under CPR 54.8A(2) a Reply shall be as concise as possible and shall not exceed 5 pages.

The Claimant did not file a Reply within the 7 days’ time scale. He was in communication with the court suggesting that he needed more time to do so due to his health. He made an application for an extension of time to file his Reply on 17 July 2024, supported by some medical evidence. He sought an extension of time of 7 days. It appears from the court file that this application could not be properly processed due to the Claimant’s failure to file the necessary evidence in support of his help with fees application.

The net result was that as at the morning of 12 September 2024 no extension of time had been granted to the Claimant for the filing of a Reply. Moreover, no Reply had been received from the Claimant despite the fact that on 17 July 2024 he had only sought an extension of 7 days to file it.

The papers were placed before HHJ Saffman on that day and he refused permission. He did so for three overarching reasons. First, he concluded that none of the grounds were arguable as a matter of law. Second, he held that the Claimant ought not to be permitted to proceed because he had failed to pursue alternative remedies, namely the internal complaints process including as appropriate a referral to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and a claim in the civil courts. Third, he found that the claim is academic because it relates to a refusal to permit attendance at a meeting that has already taken place.

Shortly after 4 pm on 12 September 2024 the Claimant filed a Reply with the court. It follows from the above chronology that this had not been seen by HHJ Saffman before he refused permission.

The Claimant’s Reply did not comply with the CPR in various respects. It is some 40 pages long. Around the first half of it expands on points made in the claim form. It also had appended to it a bundle running to some 85 pages including much material that would have been in existence when the claim was filed with no explanation for why it had not been provided earlier. The Claimant also provided three supplementary documents, namely the Union’s constitution and extracts from its Bye-Laws, again with no explanation for why these had not been provided earlier. Nor did the Claimant make an application to rely on this additional evidence or, to the extent necessary. an application to amend his claim form. Finally, it is not clear whether the Claimant served the Reply on the University or the Union.

On 26 September 2024, permission having been refused on the papers, the Claimant filed a Form 86B indicating his intent to renew the application for permission.

In section 4 of that form the Claimant wrote “please see appended renewal bundle”. This included another lengthy set of submissions, running to some 34 pages, and a further bundle of evidence. The submissions and evidence were very similar, but not identical, to the material provided at the Reply stage. Again, to the extent necessary, no application was made to rely on further evidence or amend the claim form.