King v The University of Notre Dame [2015] NSWSC 309

King v The University of Notre Dame [2015] NSWSC 309

The plaintiff was not entitled under the University's Regulations or Student Appeals Policy to continue attending classes or progress to MED3000 pending judicial review proceedings or after termination of enrolment. She failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of success or a serious question to be tried. The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the University, given the potential prejudice to clinical partners and patient safety, as well as the academic and professional standards of the University. The application for interlocutory injunction was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory, Ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'judicial Review' 'student Appeals' 'university Regulations']
['administrative Law' 'education Law'] ['injunctions' 'judicial Review' 'student Appeals' 'university Regulations']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory, Ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the University from terminating her enrolment pending determination of appeals and court proceedings' 'Whether university regulations or appeals policy entitle the plaintiff to attend classes and continue her degree pending judicial review' 'Whether there is a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours granting the interlocutory injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled under the University's Regulations or Student Appeals Policy to continue attending classes or progress to MED3000 pending judicial review proceedings or after termination of enrolment. She failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of success or a serious question to be tried. The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the University, given the potential prejudice to clinical partners and patient safety, as well as the academic and professional standards of the University. The application for interlocutory injunction was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the Plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction contained in paragraph 3 of her Notice of Motion filed 21 January 2015" "The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs"]