Appeals

Appeals to Education Committee against decisions made by the Proctors’ or Registrar (or their delegates)

Under the Regulations for the Conduct of University Examinations, Part 18.1, it is possible for a student or college to appeal against certain decisions made by the Proctors or Registrar if they are dissatisfied with the outcome. Only appeals relating to the following can be considered:

• Arrangements as a result of religious festivals and holidays coinciding with exams
• Arrangements for candidates with exam adjustments
• Decisions not to forward to examiners an application for consideration of mitigating circumstances notices
• Decisions relating to late submission, non-submission, non-appearance, and withdrawal from examinations 

The appeal must be made within 14 days of the Proctors’ or Registar’s decision. The method of submitting an appeal will depend on the type of application and the method by which the original application was made.

If the original application was for a coursework extension or late penalty waiver, and that application was made via the eVision process, then appeals on these decisions should also be made via eVision. Instructions on this process are available on the eVision User Guides and Quick Reference Guides (QRGs) webpage. The guide is in the ‘Colleges’ section of the above webpage in the ‘On-course’ section, named Coursework Extensions: Appeals (Colleges).

For all other appeals, these should be submitted to Education Policy Support by email.

Appeals should include the original outcome email sent from the Proctors’ Office or the decision-maker in a department acting under delegated authority (this is automatically included in Appeals submitted via eVision) and an appeal statement which should clearly address on what grounds the appeal is being made.

Appeals will only be considered on one or more of the following grounds:

1.    there was a procedural irregularity or error in the Proctor’s/Registrar’s consideration;
2.    the Proctor’s/Registrar’s decision was unreasonable (the candidate must identify which aspects of the decision the candidate considers to be objectively unreasonable and why);
3.    the candidate was not provided with clear reasons for the Proctor’s/Registrar’s decision; or
4.    the candidate has material evidence which the Proctor/Registrar has not yet seen which the candidate had valid reasons for not having provided earlier.

If after this appeal the student is still dissatisfied they will be directed to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).

Appeals against a decision made by Education Committee

An applicant who is dissatisfied with a decision originally made on behalf of Education Committee may appeal against the decision. The college or department may make the appeal on the student’s behalf, or the student may make the appeal on their own behalf. The appeal will be heard by two members of Education Committee with no previous connection with the case.

The appeal must be made within 14 days of the date of the Education Committee decision. The method of submitting an appeal will depend on the type of application and the method by which the original application was made.

If the original application was for an out of time extension or late penalty waiver, and was made via the eVision process, then appeals on these decisions should also be made via eVision.

Instructions on this process are available on the eVision User Guides and Quick Reference Guides (QRGs) webpage.

The guide is in the ‘Colleges’ section of the above webpage in the ‘On-course’ section, named Coursework Extensions: Appeals (Colleges).

All other appeals related to decisions made on behalf of Education Committee should be submitted to Education Policy Support by email. There is no specific form to complete for an appeal.

Appeals should include the original outcome email sent from Education Committee (this is automatically included for appeals submitted via eVision) and an appeal statement which should clearly address on what grounds the appeal is being made. Appeals will only be considered on one or more of the following grounds:

1. there was a procedural irregularity or error in the Committee’s consideration;
2. the Committee’s decision was unreasonable (which aspects of the decision considered to be objectively unreasonable must be identified and why);
3. clear reasons were not provided for the Committee’s decision; or
4. there is material evidence which the Committee has not yet seen for which there are valid reasons for not having provided earlier.