Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett ruled moments ago that while contracts did exist between students of the 2013 graduating class of St Johns College and the Anglican Central Education Authority, the ACEA did have the discretion to cancel the graduation ceremony and prom.
Sir Michael noted that the situation between the two parties was unfortunate but added that, in the circumstances, the ACEA was not in a contractual breach even though it cancelled graduation four days prior to the ceremony.
He noted that no amount of money could compensate the students for losing out on that special day that rewarded them for years of hard work.
He also expressed sympathy for the students and parents who were not involved in 'Ditch Day' and hoped that the ACEA would reimburse them.
Christina Galanos, who represented the students who brought legal action against the school, declined to comment on the decision.
Diane Stuart, Vice Chancellor for the ACEA, said it really was an unfortunate situation for both sides but believes that the right choice was made.
Both parties will appear before the Chief Justice in September to argue costs.
Comments
B_I_D___ 10 years, 8 months ago
Bravo!! At least there is some justice. I do feel sorry for some of the 'good apples' that got burned...but you are a team...you need to reel in those 'bad apples'.
abacogrouper 10 years, 8 months ago
Fantastic! Sometime the innocent suffer the guilty for the better good. For every action there is a reaction - positive action, positive reaction; negative action, negative reaction. Some lessons are painful to learn.
newcomer2012 10 years, 8 months ago
While I agree with the school's right to cancel the graduation, I think they should have returned the money to the parents; especially the parents of children they KNEW were not a part of it. I think that would have been best from a PR standpoint and just being fair. Next year the contracts should state something like "funds are not refundable" so there is complete understanding of what these "contracts" are implying.
china3379 10 years, 8 months ago
It's easy for the public at large to take that position since you nor your child was affected. If you had the experience of your child's 12 years of hard work culminate in picking up the yellow bag from the office your position might not be so self righteous.
This is a clear indication of how powerful the Anglican institution is in this country. The correct decision can only come from someone who has the gumption to take a stand and set a precedent.
Parents in the community who are considering private school over public school should re-think their position and be more selective. When you enter into a financial contract for your child's education you should have an expectation that after twelve years of school fees a school can give your child a proper send off as is customary.
St. johns class of 2013 was a scapegoat and in the line of fire of an institution already plagued with corruption.
Decisions involving children should be made by persons who have a love for children. The Bible teaches you; "suffer the little children..."
china3379 10 years, 8 months ago
You probably went to school "back in the day"...1955. Maybe then the school fee was only 50 shillings. If it weren't the norm for the school to do a graduation...Why collect graduation fees, send out graduation invitations, prepare for graduation ceremony. And, cancel and then try to steal the people money. St. John's school fees is $,1200.00 per term. The average class is 25 students, and still, at exam time, teachers would not have covered the prescribed subjects. So if parents still patronize that institution despite their shortcomings, the institution could at least give a little in return. If you took the time to read my previous post, you would see there was no mention of a prom, as parents were not too concern about that.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID