Suzette Curtello v University of the West Indies

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Sykes J
• Judgment Date: 11 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] JMSC Civ 223
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO 2015HCV05012
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 11 November 2015

Between

Uzette Curtello

Applicant

and

University Of The West Indies (Board of Graduate Studies and Research)

Respondent

[2015] JMSC Civ 223

CLAIM NO 2015HCV05012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE CIVIL DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW — ROYAL CHARTER ESTABLISHING UNIVERSITY — WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS WITHIN PROVINCE OF THE UNIVERSITY VISITOR

IN CHAMBERS

Caroline Haye for the claimant

Christopher Kelman instructed by Myers Fletcher Gordon for the respondent

Sykes J

1 On October 27, 2015 I granted Miss Suzette Curtello leave to apply for judicial review and made an order that the University of the West Indies (“UWI”) disclose the name and identities of the Miss Curtello's internal and external examiner. Miss Curtello believes that she has been hard done by in relation to Ph D dissertation. The problem arose because two examiners reviewed her dissertation and were divided. One felt that it met the standard to be awarded the degree and other did not. How the matter was resolved is not entirely clear from the documents presented to the court. Miss Curtello believes a third person with whom she has had a difficult relationship was the third person asked to examine her dissertation and that person influenced or decided that her dissertation was not sufficient for her to be awarded the degree. She does not know who the examiners are and wishes to know who they are in order to determine whether the decision was activated by improper consideration or worse, malice, rather than an objective dispassionate examination of her dissertation. The university's response is that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter.

2 In light of the cases cited by Mr Christopher Kelman and Mrs Caroline Haye the court has decided to set aside the grant of leave for judicial review as well as the order for disclosure has been set side. From the learning derived from the cases, the court has decided that Miss Curtello ought to utilise the visitor system of UWI. However, as will be made clear in these reasons the court can intervene to bar the visitor from embarking on the inquiry or can be compelled to conduct an inquiry. It will be equally clear that this court does not accept the reasoning of the majority in Page v Hull University Visitor [1993] All ER 97 because it has not advanced a cogent reason for not subjecting the visitor to the full rigours of judicial review. The reason advanced was simply that the history the matter is that the visitor was not subject to much judicial control and therefore it should continue. The basis of this conclusion is that the visitor is not applying the general law of the land but the law of the university or the charity and in that regard the visitor is immune from challenge regardless of how wrong or irrational the decision. Respectfully, this is not a sufficient reason. What would need to be shown is that subjecting the visitor to the full rigours of judicial review would somehow undermine his or her effectiveness or harm the visitatorial system in such a manner and to such an extent that it cease to be what it is – namely a relatively inexpensive informal method of dispute resolution. Nothing like this was shown in the reasoning of the majority. This will be addressed in more detail at the end of these reasons for judgment.

3 From what was told to the court, the UWI has no easily available and accessible documentation that clearly and accurately states the circumstances and procedure for persons to gain access to the visitor's jurisdiction. It may be helpful to be a bit detailed in this decision in order to show that there are means of redress available to Miss Curtello within the university's visitatorial system.

Who is a university visitor?

4 The university visitor is an office that is at least three hundred years old. In England and Wales complaints by university students are now dealt with under the Higher Education Act 2004 which established an Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

5 According to Halsbury's Laws of England (volume 24 (2010)/3) para. 399:

The visitatorial jurisdiction stems from the power recognised by the common law in the founder of an eleemosynary corporation to provide the internal laws under which the object of his charity was to be governed and to be sole judge of the interpretation and application of those laws either by himself or by such person as he should appoint as a visitor.

6 “Eleemosynary” means relating to alms, charity or charitable donations. The key words there are “eleemosynary corporation.” The word “corporation” is vital because it is this characteristic that attracts the office of a visitor. If it is not a corporation then there is no visitatorial authority.

7 It has been pointed out that if “a charity is erected, and the property is vested in some persons as trustees for the benefit of others as cestuis que trust, the ruling authority is not a visitor, but the Court of Chancery” ( The Law Magazine” or Quarterly Review of Jurisprudence for February 1838; and May 1838 Vol XIX (1838) (London) (Saunders and Benning, Law Book Sellers) pp 1 – 2). However, “where those who are to enjoy the benefit are incorporated, then, to prevent all perverting of the gift or charity, the law establishes a visitatorial power” (citing Dr Ayliffe in The Law Magazine p 2). Consequently, “is it the combination of the legal interest with the actual enjoyment of the corporate property, which constitutes a proper case for the visitor's jurisdiction” ( The Law Magazine p 2). Therefore in “all these charitable corporations, someone must be visitor. If the donor appoints no one, he is himself visitor during his lifetime. After his death, his heir is visitor, or, in case no heir can be found, the king. The king is visitor of all royal foundations: also of any foundations made partly by himself and partly by a subject” ( The Law Magazine p 2). “Where the king is visitor, he visits by his chancellor or by special commissioners” ( The Law Magazine p 2).

8 As far as the law was concerned there never a gap in visitatorial authority. The law provides a mechanism whereby a visitor can be identified even if the institution does not have a standing visitor. By standing visitor is meant a person who is appointed to that office even if there is no immediate need for his jurisdiction. If the benefactor did not explicitly establish the mechanism of the appointment of a visitor, the law concluded that benefactor and his heirs were the visitor. If no heirs can be identified then the law concluded that the sovereign was the visitor.

9 The same root idea of the visitor in relation to charitable organisations was also applied to universities since the manner of their establishment indicated that they were seen as eleemosynary institutions. If the university was established by a private citizen then the governing documents prescribed the scope and extent of the visitor's powers. Where the university was established by royal charter the precise powers of the visitor are determined by the terms of the royal charter and any other document regulating the governance of the university.

10 “The visitor, then, is an officer appointed by the founder and has an authority emanating from the founder's original rights” ( The Law Magazine p 5).

The foundation and justification for the visitor's jurisdiction

11 From the next three cases cited the juridical basis of the visitor's power is clearly laid down. The law distinguished between four types of charitable or eleemosynary organisations. First there was pure trust where the trust is established and vested in trustees who are to manage the trust for the benefit of cestui qui trust. In these circumstances the Courts of Chancery had direct responsibility because this type of circumstance did not attract visitatorial powers. Second, there were eleemosynary corporations that were for public purposes and where this was this case they were governed by the ordinary laws of the land. Third, there were eleemosynary corporations that were established privately. In this instance the law accepted that a concomitant right was to determine how the property was to be managed. For this right to accrue the property had to be vested in those persons who were to benefit and the vehicle for doing this a corporation. Fourth, there were those established by royal charter. Where this was the case the visitor was the sovereign who in practice exercised the power through the office of the Lord Chancellor.

12 Before going to the cases it is important to state the justification for treating pure trusts differently. Lord Griffiths in Thomas v University of Bradford [1987] AC 795, 823 assists:

The reason why the courts have maintained their jurisdiction over trusts, whether or not they benefit members of the foundation, is that the terms of the trust are to be derived from the construction of the trust instrument and not by any application of the laws of the foundation. Thus the construction of a trust must be a matter for the courts and not the visitor, nor is there any reason why the supervision of the trust should not remain with the courts. The cases on trusts well illustrate the principle that only those matters governed by the laws of the foundation are within visitatorial jurisdiction: see Green v. Rutherforth (1750) 1 Ves. Sen. 462 , and Ex parte Berkhamsted Free School (1813) 2 Ves. & Bea.134, and Attorney-General v. Magdalen College, Oxford, 10 Beav. 402. Other cases are to be found discussed by Dr. Smith in 97 L.Q.R. 610, 634–637.

13 The court now goes to the three cases. The first case is Philips v Bury 100 ER 186. In that case Holt CJ delivered what has come to be recognised as a correct statement of the law and has been regarded as the best early exposition...