Former student Vinuka Sandipa Thalis seeks Supreme Court review of University of Adelaide decision to expel him from dentistry

A former student has taken the University of Adelaide to court, claiming bias and a lack of empathy for insomnia, over his “exclusion” from dentistry.

 

An insomniac student wants the state’s highest court to overturn his “expulsion” and order the University of Adelaide to let him back in – so he can pursue his “ambition” of being a dentist.

Vinuka Sandipa Thalis has asked the Supreme Court to judicially review the university’s February 2023 decision to exclude him from its dental surgery program for 12 months.

In his court papers, Mr Thalis – who now studies human movement and nutrition in Queensland – says he wants to call new evidence about insomnia’s impact upon his mental health.

He also wants to “adduce new evidence” alleging “bias” on the part of Adelaide Dental School deputy head Associate Professor Eleanor Parker. Prof Parker is not a party to the claim.

“(Mr Thalis’) anxiety disorder, with mild depressive features, were secondary to anxiety and sleep problems … involving zero to three hours’ sleep per night,” his papers allege.

“(His) fear (of) revealing mental health issues – because of the impact of failure, as a male person in his Sri Lankan community – was significant, and he was afraid to bring his family into disrepute.

“(He should) be permitted to adduce new evidence as to the adverse health impact of the conduct of Dr Parker (and) the actual or ostensible bias of Dr Parker.”

Mr Thalis’ papers allege he “had been successful in his first year” of study, including work experience at two different dental clinics.

They allege his “ambition was to work as a dentist” but his “sleep disorder” caused his “routine to suffer” and “affect his mood and motivation”.

The papers allege the university gave Mr Thalis “inadequate warning” that he was failing.

It allegedly “gave encouragement” about reparative steps, rather than outlining “mandated” actions to get him back on track.

The university’s internal tribunal, they allege, “misconstrued or misunderstood its duty” and “thereby committed a jurisdictional error” in “the issue of the expulsion”.

The university has yet to file papers in response, and the case returns to court next month.

A university spokesman said: “The matter is confidential and the University of Adelaide is not able to provide comment.”

The content summaries were created with the assistance of AI technology, then edited and approved for publication by an editor.