Mrs Justice Lieven handed down her written judgment on Wednesday afternoon, and the language was unsparing. The Office for Students had been biased, had “closed its mind” when investigating the University of Sussex, and had unlawfully predetermined its decision to impose a £585,000 penalty.
The fine—the largest ever levied by England’s higher education regulator—has now been torn apart.
The case centred on Kathleen Stock, a former Sussex professor whose presence on campus had sparked controversy. The OfS launched an investigation into whether the university had breached free speech regulations in its handling of the situation. That probe dragged on for three-and-a-half years before culminating in the record penalty, announced earlier this year.
The university challenged the decision through judicial review. Sussex described the 29 April ruling as a “devastating indictment” of the regulator’s conduct.
Mrs Justice Lieven found fundamental flaws in how the OfS had approached the case. The regulator had misunderstood the very concept of “freedom of speech within the law,” treating any potential restriction of lawful speech as an automatic breach of its regulatory requirements. The judge determined the OfS had demonstrated bias not evident in its approach to other universities under investigation.
Mills & Reeve, the law firm representing Sussex, assembled a nine-person team for the challenge. Midlands-based partner Helen Tringham led the effort alongside senior associate Tamsin Morris, with support from partners Richard Sykes and Sian Jackson, principal associate Kate Allen, and associates Justin Humphries, Claudia Roberts and Megan Watson.
The victory carries implications beyond Sussex’s campus.
“The judicial review and its findings shine a clear spotlight on the actions of the OfS, concerning its decision against the University of Sussex, which led to the largest ever monetary penalty being imposed by the higher education regulator,” Tringham noted.
She emphasised the ruling’s broader significance. “The court’s ruling demonstrates the important role that regulators have to play and the need for proportionate action through a fair and reasonable process when investigating organisations under their authority. This decision is not only significant for the higher education sector, but for any industry that comes under the scrutiny of a regulatory body.”
The original fine had sent shockwaves through universities across England when it was announced. Institutions watching the case closely will now reconsider how the OfS exercises its enforcement powers—and whether those powers can withstand legal challenge when applied without what the court deemed a fair process.
Trinsham pointed to the investigation’s duration and the regulator’s conduct. “The judicial review demonstrates that a fair and due process was not followed by the OfS in this instance, highlighting unlawful use of its powers following a three-and-a-half-year investigation and a bias not seen in its approach towards other universities. We’re delighted with the outcome for the University of Sussex and hope it serves as a marker for how to develop a positive and collaborative relationship between organisations and regulators in future.”
The judgment raises questions about other OfS investigations currently underway. If the regulator misunderstood the legal test for free speech breaches in this case, have similar errors occurred elsewhere?
For Sussex, the ruling represents vindication after months of defending a decision the judge has now found to be predetermined from the start. For the OfS, it marks an embarrassing reversal—and potentially a rethink of how it approaches enforcement in one of the most politically sensitive areas of higher education regulation.
What happens to the £585,000 penalty itself remains to be determined. Whether the OfS will appeal Wednesday’s ruling is unclear.
