High Court Quashes Third Level Student Expulsions

The High Court has reinforced that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate, well-reasoned, and clearly explained – especially in appeal settings. Our Education Law team breaks down the recent Igweze decision and shares practical tips for institutions on applying sanctions fairly and transparently. A clear process can prevent costly challenges later.

What you need to know

• The High Court confirmed that student disciplinary appeals must be treated as full rehearings unless clearly stated otherwise.
• Decision makers must independently assess sanctions at appeal stage – not simply review the original outcome.
• A proportionality analysis is a legal requirement, not just a fairness principle.
• The rationale for any disciplinary sanction must be clearly explained, especially where expulsion or other serious outcomes are imposed.
• Private consideration of proportionality is insufficient – the reasoning must be evident on the face of the decision.

Background: expulsion and appeal

In a recent case involving Igweze v An Institute of Technology[1], three students were permanently expelled following a series of physical altercations on and off-campus. The students were initially suspended and later permanently expelled following a disciplinary process. Each student separately represented themselves before the Disciplinary Committee but all were legally represented before the Appeals Committee by the same solicitor. Each student admitted to the misconduct at issue, expressed remorse and made a joint plea for leniency.

Although no criminal complaints or medical injuries were reported, the Institution decided to permanently exclude the students. The students later appealed the disciplinary decision but were unsuccessful before the Institute’s Appeals Committee. They subsequently brought judicial review proceedings.

The students asked the High Court to determine whether the correct legal test was applied regarding their appeal. They argued that it should have been a full rehearing at the appeal stage rather than a procedural hearing. They also argued that the Institution failed to carry out a proper proportionality analysis and did not provide adequate reasons to justify the expulsions, particularly in light of the students’ mitigating circumstances and the availability of alternative sanctions.

Court findings on appeal process and proportionality

Mr Justice Barr quashed the expulsions, finding in favour of the students on both key grounds.

The Court confirmed the appeal process was a full rehearing, not a mere procedural review. The Court relied on the ordinary meaning of the term “appeal” in the Institution’s policy. The Court held that an appeal, unless otherwise stated, means a full hearing of the matter with the authority to substitute a new outcome. This meant the Appeals Committee was required to make its own independent judgment, including reassessing the appropriate sanction, rather than simply upholding the original decision.

The Court also held that the Appeals Committee was legally obliged to undertake a proportionality analysis when determining sanctions. Justice Barr held that fairness required consideration of:

• The mitigating factors, e.g. students’ academic records, lack of injuries, remorse shown
• The available range of sanctions
• The impact of the decision on the students’ futures

The Court was critical of the Committee’s failure to explain why expulsion was imposed instead of lesser sanctions. The Judge stated that decision makers must show their reasoning, especially where life-altering outcomes are at stake.

The legal duty to show reasoning

Crucially, the Court held that it is not enough for a body to have considered proportionality in private. The analysis must be evident on the face of the decision. Therefore, there is a legal obligation to explain disciplinary decisions. This explanation can take the form of a letter informing the student of the outcome, or be included in the minutes of the meeting where:

• The range of available sanctions was considered, and
• The students’ behaviour and mitigating factors were discussed by the Committee

The Court held that there must be evidence of engagement with key submissions and for the student affected to understand the outcome.

This decision is a reminder that proportionality is not just a fairness concept, it is also a legal requirement, especially in public law settings where fundamental rights or significant consequences are engaged.

Conclusion

This decision is important for disciplinary decision makers whether in schools, colleges, or employers and it sends a clear signal that:

• Disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate and tailored to the specific facts of each case
• Decisions must be independently reasoned, especially in appeal contexts
• A checklist-style or rubber-stamp approach will not suffice, particularly where expulsion, dismissal or other serious outcomes are at stake

Top tips

Decision-makers carrying proportionality analysis should always:

• Deliberately weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances
• Assess the range of possible sanctions and you should not go straight to the maximum sanction, and
• Explain the rational behind the final sanction, particularly where expulsion, termination or other career impacting outcomes are being considered.

For more information and expert advice in avoiding similar scenarios, contact a member of our Education Law team.

People also ask

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

[1] [2025] IEHC 232