Bangert, R (on the application of) v South Bank University

Bangert, R (on the application of) v South Bank University

The court held that there was no credible evidence that Professor Bridge was motivated by malice or retaliation in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the claimant. The university, acting through Dr Farwell, was aware of and took into account the claimant's allegations but was not required to investigate them further in the absence of substantiation. The findings against the claimant, particularly regarding his refusal to cooperate with his supervisory team and his conduct relating to the website allegations, were overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of natural justice. The claim was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Bangert; Defendant: South Bank University
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
University Disciplinary Procedures, Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Malice in Disciplinary Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Education Law University Disciplinary Procedures Natural Justice Judicial Review Malice in Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Bangert

Claimant

South Bank University

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the claimant were motivated by malice or retaliation for complaints made by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the university failed to investigate the claimant's allegations of improper motivation and procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the university relied on falsified or unfairly presented evidence in disciplinary proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no credible evidence that Professor Bridge was motivated by malice or retaliation in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the claimant. The university, acting through Dr Farwell, was aware of and took into account the claimant's allegations but was not required to investigate them further in the absence of substantiation. The findings against the claimant, particularly regarding his refusal to cooperate with his supervisory team and his conduct relating to the website allegations, were overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of natural justice. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's claim is dismissed.
  • The claimant to pay the defendant's costs for proceedings prior to 1st December 2002, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.