A decision by an education watchdog which saw the University of Sussex hit with a record £585,000 fine should be struck down 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 a landmark decision in March by England’s higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS).
“The fine and the impact of the OfS 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. “This relates to the scope of the OfS’s powers, the institutional autonomy of universities to promote civility and tolerance on campus, and the reputation of one of the country’s leading universities.”
The OfS ruling against Sussex followed a three-and-a-half-year investigation, which was sparked by concerns about student protests targeting Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the university, over her views on gender identity and transgender rights.
The court was told the OfS had no jurisdiction to investigate the treatment of Stock, who resigned from Sussex in 2021 because of what he called a “medieval experience” of campus ostracism and protests.
The regulator pointed to the wording of a two-page document called the trans and non-binary equality policy statement, which Sussex said was based on a template adopted by many universities, and updated on several occasions.
“This [the policy statement] seeks to promote equal treatment on campus of trans and non-binary staff members and students,” according to written court submissions on behalf of the university.
Stock, however, raised a complaint about the policy in 2018, telling the court in written submissions, complaining that it created a “chilling effect” and left her open to harassment complaints for teaching and expressing her views on gender.
In March 2025, the OfS gave its final decision, which found that the policy statement constitutes a governing document that violates the principles governing the public interest in freedom of expression and academic freedom.
It also found that the University of Sussex did not act in accordance with its internal delegation scheme when adopting policy documents, putting it in breach of the OfS registration conditions.
For these two offences, the OfS imposed a fine of £585,000, which is subject to appeal to the tribunal. “The consequences of the decision for the university are dire,” Buttler said. “Especially its impact on the university’s reputation as a bastion for free speech.”
The university challenged the OfS ruling on a number of grounds. One of these, it argued, was that the trans and non-binary equality policy statement at the heart of the OfS case was not a university governance document, and therefore not subject to the OfS’s registration conditions.
It further argued that the university’s internal delegation scheme – the subject of the second breach – formed part of internal laws and was also outside the OfS’s jurisdiction. The university’s lawyers also argued that the OfS decision was “procedurally unfair” and its approach was “in some respects unreasonable”.
In written submissions for the OfS, Monica Carss-Frisk KC argued that all the university’s challenges should be dismissed. “The OfS has jurisdiction to consider all relevant matters; it carries out a careful and detailed investigation, correct interpretation of the relevant regulatory conditions and the policy statement on trans and non-binary equality.”
The hearing before Mrs Justice Lieven is due to end on Thursday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.