‘Unlawful’ OfS ruling against University of Sussex should be quashed, court told

A ruling by an education watchdog that led to the University of Sussex being hit with a record £585,000 fine should be quashed as “unlawful”, “unreasonable” and “procedurally unfair”, a court has heard.In a judicial review hearing before the high court in London on Tuesday, the university claimed it had suffered “severe” consequences as a result of the landmark decision last March by England’s higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS).“The fine and the impact of the OfS’s conclusions on the university’s reputation threaten to have a significant financial impact on the university,” said Chris Buttler KC, for the university, in written submissions for the hearing.“This case is of public importance,” he said. “It concerns the scope of the OfS’s powers, the institutional autonomy of universities to foster civility and tolerance on campus, and the reputation of one of this country’s leading universities.”The OfS ruling against Sussex followed a three-and-a-half year investigation, triggered by concerns about student protests targeting Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor at the university, over her views on gender identification and transgender rights.The court was told the OfS did not have jurisdiction to investigate the treatment of Stock, who resigned from Sussex in 2021 over what she called a “medieval experience” of campus ostracism and protests.The regulator focused instead on the wording of a two-page document called the trans and non-binary equality policy statement, which Sussex argued was based on a template adopted by a number of universities, and was updated on a number of occasions.“It [the policy statement] sought to promote the fair treatment on campus of trans and non-binary members of staff and students,” according to written submissions to the court on behalf of the university.Stock, however, raised a grievance about the 2018 policy, the court was told in written submissions, complaining that it created a “chilling effect” and left her open to vexatious complaints when teaching and expressing her views about gender.In March 2025, the OfS delivered its final decision, in which it found that the policy statement constituted a governing document that was in breach of public interest governance principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom.It also found that the University of Sussex had not acted in accordance with its internal scheme of delegation when adopting policy documents, putting it in breach of conditions of registration with the OfS.For these two breaches, the OfS imposed a fine of £585,000, which is under appeal at tribunal. “The consequence of the decision for the university has been severe,” Buttler said. “Particularly its impact on the university’s reputation as a bastion for free speech.”The university is challenging the OfS ruling on multiple grounds. One of these, it argues, is that the trans and non-binary equality policy statement at the centre of the OfS case is not a governing document of the university, and is therefore not subject to OfS registration conditions.It further argues that the university’s internal scheme of delegation – the subject of the second breach – forms part of its internal laws and is also outside OfS jurisdiction. The university’s lawyers also argue the OfS decision was “procedurally unfair” and its approach was “in certain respects unreasonable”.In written submissions on behalf of the OfS, Monica Carss-Frisk KC argued that all of the university’s challenges should be dismissed. “The OfS had jurisdiction to consider all relevant matters; it conducted a careful and detailed investigation, correctly interpreting the relevant regulatory conditions and the trans and non-binary equality policy statement.”The hearing before Mrs Justice Lieven is due to conclude on Thursday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.