Judge Raymond Pace

30 November 2006

Between 1997 and 1999, the plaintiff followed a course in the Department of Workers’ Participation Development Centre which falls under the ambit of the University of Malta and which leads to the achievement of a Diploma in Social Studies (Occupational Health and Safety).

The department also offered another two courses – Industrial Relations and Women and Gender.

Another defendant, Dr Godfrey Baldacchino was a member of the Board of Studies of the three courses.

On 11 October 1999, the Occupational Health and Safety Course results were issued. The plaintiff and another student obtained the highest overall grades.

Nobody was awarded a “pass with distinction”. The plaintiff was awarded a C+ in a Long Essay he submitted. This was alleged – and confirmed by a professor later on – to be inferior to what the plaintiff actually deserved.

Dr Baldacchino allegedly put pressure on the students to submit their essays by 30 April 1999, rather than by 17 September 1999.

The plaintiff requested the court to declare that the defendants did not comply with the established regulations regarding the preparation, submission and examination of the Long Essay in this particular course. Due to such inadequacies, the plaintiff was prejudiced in that he deserved a higher grade in his essay, a grade that affected his final overall mark. Independently of the essay, he should have been awarded a distinction.

Defendants’ claims

• The action should have been made within six months from the event and was hence prescribed in terms of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

• Examiners are only limited by the law in the manner in which they grade papers.

• They did not breach any regulations.

• The grade given to the plaintiff was correct and reflected his exam performance.

• The plaintiff’s claims were unfounded in fact and in law.

The court examined all evidence and heard all witnesses.

The Court

Since the results were published on 11 October 1999, and the plaintiff’s action was filed on 10 April 2000, it was made within the time indicated by the law. Hence the defendants’ claim was rejected.

According to the plaintiff, on 2 February 1999, the Board of Studies for the course 1997/1999 of this department regarding health and safety approved “Guidelines for Long Essays”. According to these guidelines and Legal Notice 40 of 1998, this essay had to be submitted up to three months after the final exams. The plaintiff declared that Dr Baldacchino ordered submission to be made by 30 April 1999, leaving less preparation time. The plaintiff claimed that the students were pressured to follow this order so much so they were warned that should they not follow it, there would be the possibility that they would not graduate that year. Hence the plaintiff felt constrained to obey. Although students followed suit and submitted their Long Essays in April, there were also others who submitted theirs after their final exams and they still were allowed to graduate.

According to the guidelines, the deadline for the submission was 17 September 1999.

The court felt that Dr Baldacchino had sufficiently shown that his “order” was a mere recommendation so that students would have more time to concentrate on their exams and also because in summer, supervisors would not be as readily available.

This was strengthened by the fact that the majority of students did not in fact submit their Long Essays by April and hence interpreted Dr Baldacchino’s words as advice rather than an order. Only two students submitted the essay by 30 April, seven by May (including Plaintiff), two by June, two by July, three by August and 12 by September.

The court found the plaintiff’s claims to be unfounded particularly upon noting that the latter submitted his essay in May not in April (the crucial deadline he was condemning).

The plaintiff argued that this occurred because he had heard that the deadline had been extended until May.

The plaintiff claimed that he was awarded a grade C+ for his essay because he was not given enough time, and in any case, he felt that it deserved a far better grade than that.

The plaintiff had applied for a revision of paper of the essay.

The examiner appointed agreed with the original examiners’ grade.

Regarding the manner in which the essay was graded, this was a question of opinion and the professor who claimed that the plaintiff deserved more agreed with this stipulation.

On 17 June 1999, the plaintiff sat for Paper 2 of his final exams which carried 20% of the final grade. The plaintiff could not understand one of the questions and when he tried to clear the ambiguity, the secretary present could not help.

He misunderstood the question and he felt that this happened as a result of a lack of proper assistance. In his opinion, this led to his obtaining the C+.

On 4 October 1999, the plaintiff was informed that he was to sit for an oral exam on 8 October. Dr Baldacchino insisted that this was to determine whether the plaintiff should be awarded a Distinction or not. Only another individual and himself were called. He attended although he was not given one week’s notice as is stipulated in the guidelines. This procedure was different to the gender and industrial relations courses. In fact, there were individuals in these courses who got lower grades than the plaintiff and the other student, and were not given an oral exam and passed with Distinction.

The court noted that after the orals, it resulted that neither of the students who obtained the highest grades deserved a Distinction.

The fact that the plaintiff was not given a week’s notice was irrelevant since this concept derived from the guidelines which were not mandatory. Interestingly, it was only when the plaintiff did not achieve the grade he wanted that he complained.

All other claims made by the plaintiff were not proved.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were unfounded in fact and in law.

This case may be the subject of an appeal.