R (on the application of Cardao-Pito) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator

The High Court will exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings over the decisions of those exercising public functions, including complaints bodies such as the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education: see our briefing on R (on the application of Cardao-Pito) v OIA. In this case, the OIA initially recommended payment of a monetary award of £400 for the complaints made by the PhD student against the London Business School. The claimant however argued that this was inadequate, valued his loss at £68,400 and issued judicial review proceedings. The proceedings were stayed and the OIA reviewed its decision, this time recommending a monetary award of £6,500 for loss of opportunity, distress and inconvenience. However, this was still not acceptable to the claimant who pursued the judicial review proceedings to a full substantive hearing. The OIA’s decision was then quashed and sent back for redetermination as it did not address the complaint adequately in terms of the allegations which had been made and the basis for the level of monetary award which had been recommended.

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Posted by

Mills & Reeve Sites navigation
A tabbed collection of Mills & Reeve sites.
My Mills & Reeve navigation
Subscribe to, or manage your My Mills & Reeve account.
My M&R


Register for My M&R to stay up-to-date with legal news and events, create brochures and bookmark pages.

Existing clients

Log in to your client extranet for free matter information, know-how and documents.


Mills & Reeve system for employees.