AC-2024-LON-003094 - [2025] EWHC 2161 (Admin)

THE CLAIM IN JUDICIAL REVIEW

The Claimant wrote to the Defendant asking that the decision be set aside. The Defendant refused. Following pre-action correspondence this claim was issued on 03 September 2024.

The claim as originally drafted (not by Ms Gannon who was instructed after permission was granted) sought to challenge the Defendant’s investigation, the decision of the MPC and the outcome of the appeal panel decision. Summary grounds of defence were filed on 11 October 2024.

Permission was granted by Mr Justice Morris on 24 March 2025 on a limited basis. The permission decision states that the only relevant decision which can properly be the subject of challenge is the appeal outcome dated 28 May 2024. Permission was refused in respect of the earlier investigations and the MPC determination. Permission was also refused in relation to a jurisdictional challenge.

No renewal application was made by the Claimant.

Following the grant of permission and on 02 May 2025, the Defendant filed detailed grounds of defence and a 36 page statement from Mr Gibbons. Mr Gibbons exhibited 1018 pages of evidence and a further 1000 or so pages were disclosed on 07 and 09 May 2025. It was only through the witness statement of Mr Gibbons and the documents that he exhibits that the Claimant learned of his presence at and correspondence with the MPC summarised above. Also included within the disclosure was correspondence between Pearson and the 50 students who were investigated.

In consequence of this evidence, the Claimant sought to rely upon further evidence of its own. This comprised (1) a witness statement from its solicitor which primarily dealt with procedural matters, the duty of candour and concerns in relation to (i) the Defendant’s correspondence with students and (ii) Mr Gibbons’ role within the investigation and (2) a statement from Mr Amir of SSS which comprised a response to the evidence of Mr Gibbons. The statement from the Claimant’s solicitor in particular is heavy upon argument and comment.

The Claimant also sought to amend its grounds of claim on the basis that it was unaware of certain relevant matters until the statement of Mr Gibbons and exhibits upon which he relies were served or disclosed. The application to amend broadly relates to three areas (1) pleadings which relate to the role of Mr Gibbons in the investigation and MPC (2) a new ground relating to Mr Gibbons playing a role in relation to both the investigation and the MPC which is a breach of the policy set out above and (3) amendment to the remedies sought.

The Defendant strongly opposes the application to admit evidence and the application to amend the grounds. It seeks to confine the Claimant to the pleaded grounds of claim which remain following the limited grant of permission. The Defendant submits that the application cuts directly across the permission decision and causes unfairness as it has not had an opportunity to respond in particular to the submissions relating to the investigations into the students.

The manner in which the various applications and evidence have been served has resulted in applications for relief from sanctions on both sides. Insofar as these relate to matters other than the Claimant’s application to amend its grounds, I granted all of these applications at the beginning of the hearing.

The application to amend in relation to the student investigations seeks to include a complaint that the Defendant failed properly to communicate with students, failed to conduct timely interviews and failed to provide students with a transcript of their interview as required by policy.

I refused the Claimant’s application to amend its grounds to include factual pleadings in relation to the student investigations. I do not consider it arguable that the new material materially undermines the relevant findings in relation to the students who were investigated.

The complaints relating to the student investigations are set out in the witness statement of Mr Amir who is the interim Chief Operating Officer of SSS. Mr Amir contends that inadequate information was provided to the students before their interviews. He seeks to establish that correspondence is missing and was not provided to the MPC and appeal panel. He highlights complaints and frustrations expressed by students in relation to the Pearson investigation. Mr Amir also says that there was a failure to provide the students investigated with transcripts of their interviews as required by policy. The Claimant submits that it only became aware of this material after the permission decision hence the lateness of this application.

Even taking these matters at their highest they do not impact upon the evidential value of the interviews or the findings made against the students. Those interviewed were not failing to explain difficult concepts in a manner that might be remedied with better information and/or a timelier investigation, they were failing by some margin to explain basic concepts in work they had submitted. Issues with correspondence also do not explain language problems. Importantly there have been findings against these students by MPCs which have not been appealed on behalf of any of the students who were disqualified.

It is correct that the Pearson investigations handbook says that transcripts of interviews should be produced and sent to interviewees for reference, however, here the students were sent links to the video which was an adequate substitute. I accept the Defendant’s explanation that in an investigation of this kind it would be disproportionate to produce transcripts of all of the student interviews.

Ultimately I did not understand that the Claimant was seriously disputing that problems had been uncovered in relation to those investigated. What was disputed was what inferences could properly be drawn about SSS from these investigations.

There is therefore no proper basis to go behind the decision of Mr Justice Morris to refuse permission to challenge the investigations into the students. Further I agree with the Defendant that there would be prejudice were the hearing to extend in this direction as it is not a point which it has had a proper opportunity to address in evidence.

I have tried not to take an overly technical approach to the grounds of claim but to read the pleadings in a way that will ensure fairness to both parties. I recognise that the manner in which this case has evolved has caused difficulties for the lawyers on both sides. I have allowed the other applications to amend the grounds of claim and have allowed permission for all of the evidence provided to be considered. The evidence contained within the statements of Mr Amir and the Claimant’s solicitor is, however, not all relevant to the claim as pleaded.