Sammy vs. Birkbeck Coll. 1964 (original) (raw)
Sammy vs. Birkbeck College
Law report in The Times, 3rd November 1964
Mr. Sammy loses
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr. Justice Marshall
His Lordship entered judgment with costs for the defendants in this action by Mr James Julian Ben 'Sammy' (Samnadan-Pillai), aged 40, physicist, of Stanley Gardens, London N. W. against Birkbeck College, for an order of mandamus for specific performance by the college for issue to him of due and proper certificates of his examination results to the degrees of B.Sc., (General), 1954, and of B.Sc., (Special), 1957, and damages for breach of contract, fraud and professional negligence.
The plaintiff appeared in person; Mr Brian Neill for the defendants.
The plaintiff completed his final address to the court.
Judgment
His Lordship said that the plaintiff, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and a British citizen, had told his Lordship, and he accepted, that, before the plaintiff came to this country, he served both as a teacher and in the Civil Service. From October, 1951, until May, 1957, he was a student at Birkbeck College, studying for a science degree in the principal subject of physics.
Birkbeck College, incorporated by Royal Charter on 17th March 1926, was one of the constituent colleges of the University of London, and, as such, provided a school in the faculties of arts and sciences within that University. The distinctive feature of Birkbeck College was that it made special provision for teaching students who were able to pursue their educational studies only on a part-time basis.
As amended, and approved by her Majesty on 3rd August 1956, an article of the charter provided that membership of the college should be open to all persons, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, without any discrimination whatsoever; no religious tests should be imposed upon any teacher or student or officer of the college, nor should any disability be imposed on the grounds of political beliefs, sex, or race; the only qualification required of teachers, students, and officers should be fitness to contribute or pursue the arts or sciences, or other liberal studies.
During the years 1951 to 1957, when the plaintiff was a student, part-time students played a fee of �13 15s. a session, which entitle them to attend lectures, use the amenities of the college, and be prepared for an internal degree of the University of London. In order to qualify to sit for such a degree the student had to be registered as a student of the university and, although no evidence was led, his Lordship assumed that studentship of Birkbeck College satisfied this requirement. He had to make application to the university to sit for his examination and pay a fee. The fee was payable to the university, and provision was made for the college to receive it as agent of, and to remit it to, the university.
Examinations were conducted by a board of examiners appointed by the Senate of the university. The board had from 40 to 50 members, two of whom had to come from outside, the rest are being drawn from various colleges of the university itself. The constituent colleges, as such, took no part in the examinations, and any examiners drawn from the university acted, when conducting such examinations, in an individual capacity - not as members of the constituent colleges. The setting and marking of papers was allocated to the various members of the board of examiners by its chairman, and at least two examiners marked each paper independently, the candidates being known to the examiners only by an allotted number. The external examiners viewed all borderline cases, and looked at further answer books to establish the standard or class of the degree to be awarded. These examiners were present at the practical examination, and the final position of the candidates in the pass had to be concurred in by one of the external examiners.
It would be seen that the College of any student-candidate bore no responsibility in the conducting of these examinations and the awarding of degrees, although one or more of its staff, acting in individual capacity, might be on the board of examiners. Those were facts found by his Lordship as to the running of the examinations of the University of London.
Difficulties of trial
The pleadings in this case were, in many respects, unorthodox in form. This was due to the plaintiff himself having conducted the case throughout the interlocutory stages as well as at trial. It was clear that he had dipped extensively into many legal publications, and his Lordship regretted to have to say that what the plaintiff had read therein he had ill-digested. In the result the difficulties at trial had been greatly increased. His Lordship had felt it right to give the plaintiff much latitude, and had to acknowledge the forbearance shown by Mr Neil, as counsel for the defendants.
The writ was issued on 3rd August, 1962, and it transpired at the trial that the plaintiff contended, and still contended, that due and proper certificates were a first-class degree in each examination.
The plaintiff but the breach of contract in the form that the defendants broke it by deliberately, intentionally, and with malice aforethought, fraudulently misrepresenting his examination results, thereby excluding him from research and higher academic attainments, causing loss and injury to him in his professional career. He claimed in fraud and alleged that the defendants induced him to enter and re-enter the college on consecutive years, from 1951 and 1957, and to pay fees for tuition and examination by implied contract, all the while withholding from him information which, if he knew, he would not have attended the college; and they fraudulently misrepresented his examination results. He claimed professional negligence in that the defendants either did not possess the necessary skill, or did not exercise sufficient care and attention to his needs; and they, by failing to perform their contractual obligations to him caused him loss and injury in his professional career, and, indirectly, to his health.
Not surprisingly, the defendants sought further and better particulars. After much difficulty had been experienced the plaintiff delivered them. They were voluminous, and contained much that was argumentative and irrelevant to the issues raised on the pleadings. In addition he had filed in court what he called an "affidavit" of information to which he exhibited a number of documents and provided the skeleton of argument to be advanced at the trial. (Report to be completed - you get the drift. - A. M.)
CLICK TO GO/RETURN TO:
THE OXFORD COLLEGE ACCOUNTS: AKME INDEX AND EXPLANATION
THE SURPRISING TRUTH ABOUT OUP'S 'CHARITABLE STATUS'
THE HISTORY OF AKME AND OF THIS WEBSITE,
THE AKME OXFORD CUTTINGS LIBRARY,
THE AKME LITERARY LAW LIBRARY,
e-mail: akme@btinternet.com