Simon Bradshaw (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
major_clanger) wrote2004-06-01 10:10 pm
major_clanger) wrote2004-06-01 10:10 pm
Entry tags:
Gunn v University of Kent: I don't think so!
You might have seen this story about how a student thrown out of the University of Kent for plagiarism is apparently going to sue the university on the grounds that it should have detected and dealt with his offence earlier.
I think it's safe to say he has two hopes, and Bob Hope has snuffed it.
If Mr Gunn is actually suing - and I would be most interested to know if he has actually submitted a claim - then he will presumably be asking for what is termed equitable remedy. What this means is that he is asking the court to overrule an existing state of affairs (his being expelled for dishonesty) on the grounds that it is unreasonable and unfair.
This concept comes from the days when what we would now term civil law (when you sue someone) was administered by the Court of the King's Bench. The common law, as it was known, became very rigid and formalised, to the point that the court was often bound by procedure and precedent to find a particular sort of case in a particular way, irrespective of whether this outcome was 'fair'. To remedy this, a separate court was set up under the Chancellor to apply fair, or equitable principles to such disputes. This Court of Chancery developed and applied so-called Equity, a branch of law that complemented and where necessary overrode the common law.
Today these courts exist as the (at present) Queen's Bench Division and Chancery Division of the High Court, and both, together with lower courts such as the County Court, can apply both common law and equity. Equity still overrules common law though, so courts have the power to quash an otherwise legally correct decision if it is judged to be unfair.
However... there are some key principles of equity that are as old as the Court of Chancery itself, but which still apply. Foremost amongst these is "He who comes to Equity must do so with clean hands". In other words, the courts will not give you an equitable remedy to escape the consequences of your own dishonesty.
I therefore confidently assert that Mr Gunn's case will fail, if it is not struck out first as being frivolous and and abuse of the process of court. To be frank, I remain doubtful that it is actually going ahead: "I am suing X" often means "I am going to talk to a solicitor". Even should Mr Gunn find a lawyer daft enough to take instruction, he'll have to pay his own way as I cannot believe that he would get legal aid. Which means that if pigs fly and he does get his day in court, not only will he lose but he will get a hefty legal bill, both from his own lawyers and whichever of M'Learned Friends the university retain to defend this ludicrous case.
Mind you, if it does come to trial, it'll be one to watch. Even if only for entertainment value...
MC
I think it's safe to say he has two hopes, and Bob Hope has snuffed it.
If Mr Gunn is actually suing - and I would be most interested to know if he has actually submitted a claim - then he will presumably be asking for what is termed equitable remedy. What this means is that he is asking the court to overrule an existing state of affairs (his being expelled for dishonesty) on the grounds that it is unreasonable and unfair.
This concept comes from the days when what we would now term civil law (when you sue someone) was administered by the Court of the King's Bench. The common law, as it was known, became very rigid and formalised, to the point that the court was often bound by procedure and precedent to find a particular sort of case in a particular way, irrespective of whether this outcome was 'fair'. To remedy this, a separate court was set up under the Chancellor to apply fair, or equitable principles to such disputes. This Court of Chancery developed and applied so-called Equity, a branch of law that complemented and where necessary overrode the common law.
Today these courts exist as the (at present) Queen's Bench Division and Chancery Division of the High Court, and both, together with lower courts such as the County Court, can apply both common law and equity. Equity still overrules common law though, so courts have the power to quash an otherwise legally correct decision if it is judged to be unfair.
However... there are some key principles of equity that are as old as the Court of Chancery itself, but which still apply. Foremost amongst these is "He who comes to Equity must do so with clean hands". In other words, the courts will not give you an equitable remedy to escape the consequences of your own dishonesty.
I therefore confidently assert that Mr Gunn's case will fail, if it is not struck out first as being frivolous and and abuse of the process of court. To be frank, I remain doubtful that it is actually going ahead: "I am suing X" often means "I am going to talk to a solicitor". Even should Mr Gunn find a lawyer daft enough to take instruction, he'll have to pay his own way as I cannot believe that he would get legal aid. Which means that if pigs fly and he does get his day in court, not only will he lose but he will get a hefty legal bill, both from his own lawyers and whichever of M'Learned Friends the university retain to defend this ludicrous case.
Mind you, if it does come to trial, it'll be one to watch. Even if only for entertainment value...
MC