Disputes Tribunal orders university to repay $8000 in fees to student who failed course

The unnamed student failed a paper needed to get into a doctoral programme, and forfeited the course fees she'd already paid. The university has now been ordered to refund those fees. Photo / 123RF

An aspiring doctoral student who failed a paper required for her course has won an order for the university to pay her back the $8000 she spent on fees.

The student enrolled in the doctoral course at the unnamed New Zealand university after completing her master’s degree at the same university. Her entry into the higher programme required her to get at least a B grade on a research methodology paper.

She failed the paper, her enrolment in the programme was cancelled, and the $8000 she paid to get in was forfeited.

She then filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal, claiming that the university did not provide the level of pastoral care she needed and that attending multiple funerals and working impacted her studies and contributed to her failing the paper.

The name of the student, the university and the course she was taking were redacted from the tribunal’s decision.

As well as having her fees reimbursed, she sought an apology, to be re-enrolled in doctoral study and compensation to the tune of $30,000.

In submissions to the tribunal, the university said that she had been provided with ample opportunity to advance her studies but had ultimately failed the paper she needed.

In response, the student said she was obligated to attend multiple tangihanga, rather than it being a choice that she made, and that her work in Civil Defence was incredibly important and sometimes took her away from her studies.

Tribunal referee Gordon Meyer said it appeared that, while the university had provided considerable care and guidance to the student, he was not sure it was adequate when measured against its own code.

“Oddly, I can find no definition of the term ‘pastoral care’ in the code.”

He said the code’s key failing, and that of the university, was that there was no formal office for pastoral care. At the university he attended, there was a dedicated space staffed by specialists in their various fields.

“With an obligation such as that set out in the code, I would have expected a learner such as [the woman] would be directed to a formal specialist service to ensure she was being provided with the level of care required in the code before her enrolment was terminated,” Meyer said.

He resorted to Google to find a definition of pastoral care, which stated that it was “the provision of emotional, mental, and physical support to ensure the holistic welfare of individuals in various contexts, including educational institutions, workplaces, and religious communities”.

In his recently released ruling, Meyer said his concern was that the university had not provided a trained and dedicated specialist in her field.

“While I am not advocating the establishment of an office with ‘Pastoral Care’ above the door, I would have thought that there would be such a department at [the university] that provided pastoral care delivered by appropriately trained and experienced individuals.

“That would avoid the circumstance arising where the learner is being counselled by the very people who deliver the course of study and set the standards – and make the recommendation to terminal enrolment. It avoids possible perceptions of conflicts of interest.”

Meyer found that the student was entitled to be repaid her fees, but noted that the tribunal did not have the power to order the university to make an apology, nor to reinstate her to the doctoral programme.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.