University Masters of Teaching student William Lee takes course failure appeal to Supreme Court

It’s been a case of if at first you don’t succeed try, try again for a ticked-off teaching student who has taken an appeal against a uni course fail all the way to the Supreme Court.

William Lee took the matter to the supreme court. Picture: Diego Fedele

A ticked-off teaching student at a Melbourne university has seen his appeal against a bad grade fall flat in the Supreme Court after he failed to meet a key deadline.

La Trobe University Masters of Secondary Teaching student William Lee failed a teaching placement after being assessed as not meeting expectations in November 2023.

But the aspiring teacher wasn’t content to take no for an answer.

William Lee took matters to the Supreme Court after failing a teaching placement.

After seeking — and failing — to have the assessment grade overturned by both the university’s student conduct investigations team and the university ombudsman, the would-be high school teacher turned to the Supreme Court.

There was just one catch — he was 52 days late filing his appeal.

Mr Lee needed to start the judicial appeal within 60 days of failing the course but he only started 112 days after he had found out about the result, the court heard.

Mr Lee was a student at La Trobe University. Picture: Zoe Phillips

This still did not deter Mr Lee, who argued in court he did not require an extension of time.

He instead sought a Supreme Court ruling not just on his assessment grade, but also on whether the university failed to follow proper protocols.

“Mr Lee submitted that his application does not seek a review of ‘academic judgment’ but rather was based on the university’s breach of procedural fairness and natural justice principles,” Associate Judge Ian Irving wrote in his decision.

Mr Lee tried to argue the university had been the ones who had failed to properly assess him. Picture: Diego Fedele.

The would-be teacher told the court the university was the one who had in fact failed because he had not been informed about his failure to meet expectations during the teaching placement.

He also said he was not informed of the school’s examination timetable.

Leigh Howard, the defence barrister acting on behalf of La Trobe University, told the court Mr Lee “had no prospect of success” in the case because academic judgment was not within the court’s purview.

Associate Judge Ian Irving sided with the university, stating Lee’s grade should be “a matter solely for the university to determine” and “inappropriate for the court to supervise”.

“Mr Lee has not demonstrated that he has an arguable case … his proceeding has no real prospect of success,” Associate Judge Irving said.

The proceedings were dismissed.

Associate Judge Irving said his “preliminary view” was the Mr Lee “should pay the university’s costs on a standard basis” but asked that the parties discuss and try to agree on an amount by Monday.