London Law School v Susie Law School [2007] HC

Facts: The defendant [D] was a student at the Claimant's [C] educational institution [London Law School, 'The Law School']. D wished to study in the London Law School Library ['The Library'] on Sunday 27th May 2007 and Monday 28th May 2007. Counsel for C submitted that they did not want D to perform to her usual high standard and thus due to no sensible reason whatsoever it was necessary to close the Library on Monday 28th May 2007 in the middle of the examination period, despite the fact that this would cause significant hardship to not only D but several other students at the Law School. It was also submitted that closure of the Library on 27th May 2007 was due to 'essential building maintenance'. C sought a revision freezing order to prevent D studying on the above dates.

Counsel for the defence conceded that the Sunday closure was acceptable due to the reasons given above regarding maintenance but contested the closure on Monday 28th May 2007. In an affidavit to the court, D stated that she considers her residence to be restricted to relaxing, and due to rarely working at her residence, she finds it difficult to focus on studying therein. D works particularly well in a library-environment, and at home her concentration levels suffer significantly. Defence counsel submitted that the closure of the Library on the given dates would have a disastrous effect on D's revision plan and subsequently the maximum grades she was likely to obtain in the forthcoming examinations in Land Law, Equity and Trusts Law, Criminal Law and European Union Law. The freezing order on D's revision would be unreasonable, particularly in light of the £8000 annual tuition fee which would be more than sufficient to cover any costs of staffing on the above date.

Held: The court accepted the Claimant's argument and a revision freezing order was granted in the interim to freeze D's revision for the above dates.

Applying the test from Derby & Co v Weldon the court held that (1) Susie had revision to do within the jurisdiction [GDL Exams], (2) there was a good arguable case that if Susie is unable to do revision, her exams will not go very well and (3) keeping the Library open on Bank Holiday Monday would involve a real risk that some revision would actually get done.

The defendant has appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

Susie Law School (Law Student)