Understanding disputes & dispute resolution

Transcription

1 Higher Education January 2009 Gary Attle Partner t: e: Understanding disputes & dispute resolution Richard Sykes Barrister t: e: This briefing note has been prepared as part of our contribution to the Higher Education Funding Council for England s funded project Improving Dispute Resolution. i The aim is to take stock of the various approaches to resolving student and university-related disputes, looking to deepen an understanding of how these different approaches may be used effectively in a university context. The briefing considers a spectrum of dispute resolution mechanisms, including the emerging jurisdiction of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, mediation and judicial review. Jan Harris Associate t: e: jan.harris@mills-reeve.com As a starting reference point, it should be noted that the courts are increasingly supporting the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Litigation in the courts should be seen as the last resort. Avoiding, minimising and resolving disputes effectively should be an important part of any organisation s risk management strategy. Emma Angus-Smith Senior Solicitor t: e: emma.angus-smith@millsreeve.com It would be foolish to expect, however, that all disputes will be eradicated as there will always be differences of opinion and acts and omissions which need to be remedied. The aim should be to manage the risks appropriately for the common good of all concerned (staff, students, institutions, commercial partners, those providing funding and the public at large given the recognised public interest in the provision of higher education). Understanding disputes Before considering mechanisms for dispute resolution, it is worth briefly noting the range of disputes which can arise in a university setting, or indeed in any other setting, as universities are not necessarily more prone to disputes than other types of organisations. Universities can be claimants, defendants or interested parties and their people can also be witnesses or expert witnesses in disputes. The law recognises various causes of action and we have seen a wide range of claims brought by, and argued against, higher education institutions. This is

2 to be expected given the complexity of activities involved in running such an organisation. Examples of causes of action include: Breach of contract (for example, collaboration agreements); Negligence (for example, accidents on campus); Defamation (for example, arising from an academic paper); Judicial review (for example, arising from a student disciplinary decision or a funding decision); Unfair dismissal (for example, following an employee s dismissal); Discrimination (for example, in the provision of services, education or employment); Breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (note however that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not give an individual their own cause of action in the courts, although the matter can be taken up with the Information Commissioner); Breach of copyright, confidence or other intellectual property rights (for example, in a commercial research agreement); Breach of covenant or other property rights (for example, in a commercial transaction or letting); and Breach of the requirement on a public body to provide a fair process (for example, in a student disciplinary matter). Judicial resolution In each situation the civil law will require certain elements to be proven with evidence, for example the terms of the contract, the act or omission which is alleged to have been negligent or the loss suffered by the claimant. Following reforms to civil procedure, the court process is now governed by the Civil Procedure Rules which are aimed at ensuring simpler and more cost-effective access to justice. Other judicial type mechanisms, such as the Employment Tribunal, are governed by their own rules of procedure. Substantive law Each cause of action will have its own substantive law, often developed by case law over the years, increasingly influenced these days by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and case law from around the world. So, for example, in the student context, a claim for judicial review in the Administrative Court will need to show that the university acted in breach of public law: in summary, that it either acted outside its jurisdiction, it breached its duty to act fairly (sometimes regarded as natural justice ) or that its decision was perverse or disproportionate. The evolving nature of the student/university relationship Contrary to judicial decisions at the end of the 19th century ii, the courts now recognise that the relationship between students and their higher education institutions is contractual in nature. However, it is crucially important to reflect on the terms of such a contract when looking at all the documentation passing between an institution and its students.

3 It is also vitally important to remember that any contract is a two-way street which involves obligations on all parties. The nature of the student/university relationship continues to evolve and the broader backcloth in the sector continues to inform the legal analysis. Recently and helpfully, Paul Ramsden, the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Academy, gave a good insight into this issue in his paper to the Secretary of State entitled The Future of Higher Education Teaching and the Student Experience (2008): There is a risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophesy that today s students are more demanding consumers in relation to the quality of teaching. Nevertheless, a characterisation of today s students as breezily self-confident rings true. They are more liable than previous generations to evaluate the experience of higher education as part of the broader context of their social and business networks. They are more liable to complain if the support services they encounter are inadequate or do not compare to their equivalents outside higher education. However, Paul Ramsden then rejects the model of students as consumers and encourages us to see the relationship more as a joint venture between students and those who provide higher education. Judicial remedies The courts have a range of remedies available to them (some of which are discretionary), including, for example: the award of damages to compensate for the loss, and sometimes the distress, suffered; injunctions to restrain a party from doing an unlawful act (for example, in acting in breach of contract or infringing a trade mark); granting declarations (for example, that a party had been discriminated against); or, quashing decisions which are ultra vires (where the institution or decision-making body has exceeded its powers). However, the courts remedies are limited. For example, they can not order an apology to be given (although judicial censure can be made in a judgment or during a court hearing). The cost, management time, publicity and disclosure processes are all serious issues to be weighed when involved in litigation. At times, however, only the force of injunctive relief and the penalty of contempt of court is sufficient to restrain a significant course of conduct which may be damaging to the health and safety of individuals or the financial or reputational interests of those concerned. Complex questions can arise when a dispute involves an international element. Whose law applies? Which court has jurisdiction to hear the case? We have had to deal over the years with several significant international disputes arising from the international activities of UK education clients, for example: allegations of defamation in Greece and in the United States; the removal of examination papers in Brazil; injunction proceedings in the West Indies; harassment allegations in the United States; the extra-territorial rights of an employee in Malaysia; and a breach of contract claim in Australia.

4 Individuals can assert their own cause of action in the courts, or in some cases bring representative actions. We have also acted in class actions where groups of individuals bring similar claims arising out of the same circumstances. Individuals may also raise whistleblowing issues where there is a matter of public interest in a matter. Protection is afforded by law to workers in certain circumstances for raising qualifying matters outside their employers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act The Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Quality Assurance Agency have causes for concern procedures for issues to be raised with them in certain circumstances for which they have an interest and where the issue is not a personal grievance (for example, where there is a financial irregularity or a risk to academic standards). Quality Assurance Agency s Code of Practice Certain disputes need to be seen against the sector context. Key in the area of student complaints and appeals on academic matters is the QAA s Code of Practice (section 5) which was revised and updated in 2007 following considerable consultation and advice across the higher education sector. The Code includes precepts and guidance for institutions and is put forward by the QAA as a statement of good practice that has been endorsed by the higher education community. It seeks to ensure that: internal procedures for complaints are fair, effective and timely; that information is made publicly available; that support is provided to those involved in the processes; and that the procedures are approved at the highest level internally and regularly monitored and reviewed. Some guidance is provided in the Code on the use of ADR processes in respect of student complaints and appeals: Some institutions may find it useful and valuable to staff and students to establish an alternative means to resolve complaints, usually via an impartial mediation or ombudsman arrangement, which may be provided by a member or members of the institution. The purpose of establishing such arrangements may be limited to enabling individuals to explore, with an impartial third party, the focus of their complaint and to seek advice, separate from the institution s complaints process. In other cases, they may be intended to provide a forum for reaching a decision or a solution to the matters. Where institutions establish mediation, ombudsman or other alternative dispute resolution services, they may need to make clear to students and staff the scope of the services, and whether their use is subject to the parties agreeing in advance to accept the solution offered or the findings reached. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) Following the passing of the Higher Education Act 2004, the OIA was established as the designated operator of the Student Complaints Scheme. The Act also abolished the jurisdiction of the Visitor in respect of student complaints which applied to those institutions established by Royal Charter. The Visitorial jurisdiction emanates from charity law where the Visitor is the guardian of the internal or domestic laws of the charitable foundation. In some senses it operated as a form of ADR and matters properly within the jurisdiction of the Visitor were excluded from being brought in the courts. With the demise of the Visitorial jurisdiction for student complaints and appeals, students at chartered universities may now bring their legal disputes to the courts and so there is now a level playing field across all types of higher education institutions in this respect. Two decisions of the courts in 2008 considered whether a student should be entitled to bring judicial review proceedings given the existence of the OIA. As a general principle of public law, claimants are expected to exhaust other adequate alternative remedies first. In the first case against Regent s Park

5 College iii in Oxford, the Administrative Court refused to grant permission to allow the student to proceed to judicial review; it considered that the OIA procedure constituted an effective remedy as the College had expressly agreed that it would implement the recommendations of the OIA. The Administrative Court went further in a case against King s College London iv and declined to grant permission to a student to proceed by way of judicial review even without the assurance that the institution would follow the recommendation of the OIA. Mr Justice Mitting had this to say: Judicial review is a remedy of last not first resort. I wish to make it clear, both to this Claimant and to others in a similar position to her, that complaints of this nature should not ordinarily be pursued by judicial review, but should be pursued where a sensible offer is made, as here, by accepting the offer or, in the absence of such an offer, by complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. That is the appropriate procedure for resolving complaints about allegedly unfair expulsion from a university. To preserve the proper governance role of the governing body of a university, the OIA has no power to make a decision in respect of a student complaint or appeal which is binding on a higher education institution. However, its decisions and recommendations have an important influence; in the latest OIA annual report (2007), it is noted that all its decisions and recommendations were followed by the institutions concerned. In our view, the OIA s decision may have an influence on any subsequent litigation, although the evidence would need to be tested in court in the usual way. From our work in the sector, while there may be some issues around the edges of the OIA s jurisdiction, it does appear that the OIA is a body which carries the support of many students, although those with a grievance may still take their case further to the nth degree. There has been other judicial activity concerning the OIA s jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal v has confirmed that, contrary to the submissions made by the OIA, that it is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts by way of judicial review: The designated operator should, in my view, be subject to the supervision of the High Court. The wish of the OIA, which I readily accept to be genuine and well intentioned, to be free from supervision should not be upheld For it to become a law unto itself would not achieve the statutory intention. (Lord Justice Pill para 50) On the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal found there to have been a procedural failing by the OIA in not disclosing some information to the student but that was not a procedural failure sufficient for the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash the OIA s decision. A strong steer was given by the Court of Appeal that courts should be loath to gainsay a university s procedures and the approach taken by the OIA: Respect is due to the regulations and procedures of a HEI and to the decisions of those who operate them. (Lord Justice Pill, para 52a) In assessing whether a complaint has been approached in a lawful manner, the court will have regard to the expertise of the OIA, which in turn should have regard to the expertise of the HEI.

6 The OIA is currently taking stock and is consulting the sector as part of its Pathways Project. A few reflections can be summarised below: The OIA confirmed a 30% increase in cases in its 2007 annual report is that because of an increase in complaints bubbling up, or are there other reasons (we note here that the OIA s scheme is free to students)? When the OIA was established, there was an expectation that its remit was going to be to review cases in a similar way to the approach taken in a judicial review matter (for example whether there was a breach of the institution s own procedures or where the decision taken by the institution was manifestly unreasonable ). However, the OIA has adopted a broader remit to consider what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and has talked at times about being like an ombudsman (which is a different model). The original Dearing Report s vision in 1997 was that there should be an independent, external element to student complaints and appeals processes. The OIA is at pains to say that it is not a regulator. It is interesting, however, that it has required, at least one institution, to report back on amendments it was asked to make on its student complaints procedures. This goes beyond the concept of reviewing the merits of an individual matter. Concern has been expressed at times about the information or documentation which the OIA has expected institutions to provide. We have seen requests made, for example, for witness statements from members of academic staff and for the provision of without prejudice correspondence (see below for further details about the concept of without prejudice communications). This does not sit comfortably with the original concept of independent review. The current consultation asks whether the OIA should be able to deal with admissions cases which are currently not within its remit. The OIA does not consider issues which relate to the academic judgment of a higher education institution (and this mirrors a long and established line of judicial decisions vi ). Although admissions cases can give rise to procedural matters or legal causes of action (such as equality law), the risk would be that many cases coming to the OIA would involve the academic judgment of an institution. Hence the floodgates may be opened. It is worth noting that the courts have been loath to interfere in admissions cases vii and have noted the difficult selections which have to be made. It should be recalled also that this is not an area which is undeveloped. Section 10 of the QAA s Code of Practice deals with admissions and much work is undertaken in the sector on enhancing admissions processes viii. One of the QAA precepts states as follows: Institutions have policies and procedures in place for responding to applicants' complaints about the operation of their admissions process and ensure that all staff involved with admissions are familiar with the policies and procedures. The consultation also asks about publishing the full decisions and recommendations made by the OIA, presumably naming the student bringing a case and the institution. Currently the OIA issues case studies which have been anonymised to be able to share with the sector how it is dealing with cases and for the sector to pick up any lessons for best practice. In some senses, those higher education institutions classified as public authorities have had to become accustomed to being named by other bodies, such as the Office of the Information Commissioner in respect of decision notices made under the Freedom of Information Act However, we do wonder whether publicising OIA decisions is necessary and whether it could further change the dynamic of the original

7 concept of independent review. Again, it is noted here that the OIA confirmed in its 2007 annual report that all its recommendations were followed by institutions. There may be public interest arguments for allowing a broader selection of bodies to come within the remit of the OIA, such as further education colleges and private degree awarding bodies. The funding for this may need careful consideration as well as the impact on subscriptions for the existing higher education institutions who submit to the OIA s Student Complaints Scheme. Will there also be an impact on the time taken to deal with complaints being handled by the OIA (which has a target of 6 months)? Mediation Mediation means a structured process whereby two or more parties to a dispute attempt by themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach agreement on the settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a mediator. This is a helpful definition and is taken from the recent EU Directive ix on mediation (which only applies to cross-border disputes). The Directive has a useful preamble: Mediation can provide a cost-effective and quick extra-judicial resolution of disputes in civil and commercial matters through processes tailored to the parties. Agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties. We endorse those sentiments. Mediation can be a very effective tool when used in the right case at the right time. We have helped university clients in mediations in a range of cases: employment disputes student grievances discrimination claims breach of international collaboration claims Mediations are without prejudice which means that settlement proposals made in a mediation can not be used before a court to prove that the party has a legal liability. A without prejudice offer to settle a matter should be made carefully as it may be accepted and a binding contract reached. It should be noted at this point that discussions and correspondence between disputing parties as part of a negotiation process with a view to reaching a settlement are also without prejudice. However, great care needs to be taken in settlement discussions, whether in a mediation or otherwise, as information which may be provided during a mediation or during a settlement negotiation may enable the other party to pursue litigation in a new light and a process may then be set in train to prove the facts revealed in the mediation or negotiation. Mediation has other significant advantages: it is consensual (which can help the parties to see that it will only work if they commit to the process); it is in private (unlike court proceedings which are in public); it is a flexible process (which should be agreed between the disputing parties and the mediator beforehand);

8 it can be used at different points in a dispute (often it can be used to simulate the doors of the court experience and the desire to settle on all parties); it can allow for other non-judicial remedies (often individuals with a grievance may genuinely want an apology or a statement about how they have been treated); a binding settlement agreement can be drawn up (care must be taken here to ensure that the fruits of the mediation process are not lost by not having a binding and comprehensive settlement document); several parties can be included (which enables a more flexible approach); the parties remain in control (for example in the choice of mediator, the venue and the outcome). The parties usually have to pay the costs associated with a mediation, such as the mediator s fees, the venue hire cost and any professional fees (for example if the parties are supported by legal advisers). However, there are a range of mediation providers and mediation schemes at differing costs. Care should be taken in the choice of mediation, depending on the nature and complexity of the dispute. In one case, the only way we were going to get the other party to attempt mediation was to suggest an eminent QC as a mediator to show that our client was treating the process seriously. The courts will encourage disputing parties to attempt mediation (possibly even by ordering a stay of the litigation proceedings to allow the parties to attempt mediation) and may penalise a party in an award of costs in litigation if mediation is unreasonably refused. Not all mediations will end in a settlement. In one case in which we were involved the parties failed to reach agreement, notwithstanding the best efforts of the mediator. However, a degree of communication had opened up again between the parties which enabled an offer of settlement to be made shortly after the mediation. That offer was then accepted. Without the understanding which had been gained of each others concerns at the mediation, we doubt that a settlement would have been achieved and a very difficult case would have proceeded to trial in the courts. Mediation is not an easy option and each one requires careful planning and thought. A mediation can run high on emotion, but the process can operate also to act as a cathartic experience, allowing someone to have their say. The key benefit of reaching a settlement at mediation is that, even if the outcome is not exactly as either party would have wished in their ideal world, the matter has been concluded, saving further time, energy and possibly cost for all concerned. In the higher education sector some universities are considering whether and how to include mediation into their processes. We would counsel that careful thought is taken as a mediation with a fully independent mediator is not necessarily the right answer for every dispute and may be a costly exercise. It is commendable that Bristol University, for example, has developed a mediation service as an optional stage in its internal students complaints procedure. Students here, having completed the local stage of the student complaints procedure, may agree to have their case referred to the University s Mediation Service (provided any other parties involved also agree). If a student still remains dissatisfied and exhausts all internal stages, there would be nothing to stop the student agreeing to a full mediation with an independent mediator (or pursuing matters with the OIA or, possibly, the courts). Conciliation At times conciliation may look like mediation as it involves a third party seeking to facilitate a mutually acceptable solution between disputing parties.

9 Anthony Glaister notes in the Law Society s dispute resolution magazine (November 2008) as follows: The Academy of Experts provides a useful definition [of conciliation] on its website: A without prejudice non-binding dispute resolution process in which an independent conciliator assists the parties to settle their differences but may, if necessary, deliver his opinion as to the merits of the dispute. This contrasts with a mediator who is not there to give an opinion on the merits of the case. However, in practice conciliation and mediation can blur. Some mediators, helpfully on occasions, draw upon their professional expertise in the private sessions with each of the parties and get them to reflect of the weaknesses of their legal case. This holding up a mirror can be just what is needed for entrenched positions to soften and make a compromise possible. It is worth noting here that the Equality and Human Rights Commission funds an independent Disability Conciliation Service. The DCS guide confirms that: The conciliator will be active in ensuring that the disabled person s issues are addressed and in suggesting ways in which the service or education provider might meet their obligations under the [Disability Discrimination Act]. In the employment law context, many will be familiar also with the work of ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). However, mediation is becoming increasingly popular for the resolution of significant employment disputes. Campus ombudsmen There has been some discussion in recent years about higher education institutions appointing campus ombudsmen. The OIA in 2008 very helpfully furthered the thinking and understanding in this area by hosting the 2008 conference for the European Network of Ombudsmen in Higher Education. At that conference, Lord Dearing stated: Baroness Deech has made the case for adopting American practice and having an omsbody in each institution. In any action on her recommendation I would place heavy emphasis on conciliation and mediation, with formal findings presented to a very senior member of staff with direct responsibility to the VC and Governing Body for action on the findings. It is beyond the scope of this briefing to attempt a definition of ombudsmen. A useful text is Ombudsmen: Public Services and Administrative Justice x by Mary Senevirante who states that Ombudsman is a Swedish word, meaning representative or agent of the people. She goes on in the course of the book to show that there are different ombuds models. Many people will be familiar in the UK with the Local Government Ombudsman scheme which focuses on maladministration but the varieties and flavours of ombudsmen are in fact quite many and varied in the UK and around the world. The OIA does not have a jurisdiction in respect of student complaints and appeals in Scotland. By virtue of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act, the remit of Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) includes complaints against higher education institutions in Scotland. Complainants must claim hardship or injustice as a result of maladministration or service failure. The SPSO publishes its findings in individual cases on its website.

10 It is worth noting that there is a debate about the merits of universities adopting their own ombudsman on campus as the feedback below suggests from one US university attorney we asked: We don t use ombudsmen. We find they complicate the process and they usually do not have authority to get anything done. In each process we have, there is always the opportunity to resolve the matter informally, so we do not need a third person to complicate matters. The key thing, in our view, in considering such an option is to be very clear about what will be achieved, taking into account the full range of internal and external processes available and the scope and nature of the role. Other types of ADR There is in fact a spectrum of dispute resolution options available to disputing parties and other dispute resolution strategies which are outside the scope of their briefing note. In many ways, the options are endless as disputing parties may always agree how to resolve their differences (although pistols at dawn is not to be recommended these days!). Arbitration: this is a more formal process than mediation or conciliation where the parties agree, either in their contract or subsequently, to submit to the binding decision of the arbitrator. Arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 and is often used in commercial contexts. We have recently handled a case, for example, which involved a dispute for a university concerning its contract with overseas agents. The contract included an arbitration clause which required the parties to resolve their dispute by arbitration rather than litigation in the courts. The parties in fact settled during negotiations between the parties respective solicitors as the arbitration proceedings followed their course. Arbitration has the advantages of having a more formal process for cases where a binding judgment is required, but with the proceedings being conducted in private and with the parties having some say in the format of the procedures. The arbitrator does not meet the parties separately given the judicial nature of the arbitrator s role. Costs can be awarded by the arbitrator. This process should not be confused with small claims in the county court which have sometimes been called arbitrations. If a claim is issued in the courts and the sum claimed is not more than 5000 then the court is likely to allocate it to the small claims track. The significance of this is that the litigants will not be able to recover their legal costs in pursuing or defending the claim, save in exceptional circumstances. Med-arb: where the parties agree, a failed mediation turns into an arbitration and the mediator becomes an arbitrator who makes a final and binding decision. Early neutral evaluation: the parties obtain from an independent person a non-binding opinion regarding the likely outcome of the dispute if it were to proceed to trial in the courts. Expert determination: the parties agree to appoint an expert and contractually agree to abide by the expert s decision. Adjudication: this is a specific statutory dispute resolution procedure used in the construction industry and established under the Housing, Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act Judicial mediation: this is the name given to a pilot project in the Employment Tribunal whereby a neutral Chairman of a Tribunal seeks to facilitate the resolution of an employment dispute by

11 agreement. An advantage of this process is that the parties may get a feel for how an Employment Tribunal may decide the case if a settlement is not reached. Some concluding remarks Having surveyed the dispute resolution landscape briefly in this briefing, a few concluding points are noted here as higher education institutions reflect on their own processes and ways of handling disputes. First and foremost, before investing lots of institutional energy and expense in building additional processes, institutions should review their existing processes and procedures to ensure that they are robust from both a practical and legal perspective. It is also vitally important that such procedures are applied and applied consistently. This sounds obvious but we have seen too many disputes which could have been avoided by a careful application of existing procedures. In dealing with students and devising procedures, institutions should have in mind the key public law principle of the duty to act fairly. Again this sounds obvious, but many disputes can be avoided by seeing how the matter plays out from the student s perspective. So, for example, in a disciplinary matter, does the student have all the information and documentation which is before the disciplinary panel to enable the student to make full and effective representations? Another key and under-pinning principle, is the duty to ensure compliance with equality law and to avoid discrimination, either as part of the activities of running a higher education institution, or in the operation of procedures for handling complaints and appeals. Would it be an appropriate and reasonable adjustment, for example, to adapt a procedure to accommodate an individual s disability? Our view is that care should be taken in adopting the right dispute resolution process for the case in hand. Many disputes will benefit, however, from an attempt to use an alternative to court proceedings, such as mediation or conciliation. Many ADR processes are consensual and so litigation may be a fact of life from time to time, but every reasonable effort should be made for litigation to be the last resort. In such situations, there are still many strategies which can be pursued to seek to reach an early conclusion and the windows of opportunity for settlement outside litigation should always be kept in view. Gary Attle Partner, head of the University Business Group For and on behalf of Mills & Reeve LLP gary.attle@mills-reeve.com

12 Acknowledgements Many thanks to colleagues at Mills & Reeve who have provided research or comments for this briefing: Nicola Brown and Tom Swarbrick in the Employment Team Richard Sykes, Jan Harris, Emma Angus-Smith and Mary Clarke in the Education & Public Law Team Paul Knight and Laura Cherrett, trainee solicitors Footnotes ii Green v-st Peter s College, Cambridge (1896) iii R (Carnell) v Regent s Park College and Another [2008] EWHC 739 (Admin) iv R (Shi) v King s College London [2008] EWHC 857 (Admin) v R (Siborurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2007] EWCA Civ 1365 vi Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] EWCA Civ 129 vii R. v University College London Ex p. Idriss, [1998] EWHC Admin 444 viii Supporting Professionalism in Admissions ix Directive 2008/52/EC x Butterworths, 2002 The contents of this document are copyright Mills & Reeve. All rights reserved. This document contains general advice and comments only and therefore specific legal advice should be taken before reliance is placed upon it in any particular circumstances. Where hyperlinks are provided to third party websites, Mills & Reeve is not responsible for the content of such sites. Mills & Reeve LLP is a limited liability partnership regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales with registered number OC Its registered office is at Fountain House, 130 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 5DJ, which is the London office of Mills & Reeve LLP. A list of members may be inspected at any of the LLP s offices. The term partner is used to refer to a member of Mills & Reeve LLP.