UCD case

The woman sued UCD over its handling of her academic progression, including after she alleged she was raped by another medical student in February 2023.

A MEDICAL STUDENT has withdrawn her appeal against the High Court’s decision to reject her claim that University College Dublin did not make adequate allowances for her academic progression after she did not pass six second-year modules. 

The woman sued UCD in July 2024 over its handling of her academic progression, including after she alleged she was raped by another medical student in February 2023.

The High Court dismissed her action in February 2026, finding UCD had acted lawfully and had not breached its own policies or discriminated against the student.

The woman then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The three-judge court heard submissions from both sides on 21 July.

During this hearing, the woman’s counsel argued UCD misapplied its own academic regulations after accepting that exceptional circumstances had affected her exam performance.

Her counsel said the central issue was whether the university had correctly interpreted and applied its regulations after it accepted that exceptional circumstances surrounding the student’s missed and failed exams in 2023 warranted the award of six IX (extenuating circumstances) grades.

Counsel for UCD said the university had been aware for months that the student was struggling academically before ultimately awarding the IX grades in October 2023.

The court was told UCD had repeatedly attempted to support the student through academic mentors, student advisers and a series of academic plans designed to manage her workload, and that it only learned in April 2024 that the student alleged her pregnancy followed a sexual assault by another UCD student.

The court then reserved judgment until the next legal term in October. 

After this hearing, gardaí arrested the student over allegations of deception against UCD. She was subsequently released without charge and gardaí said a file would be prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

This afternoon, the Court of Appeal was told that the woman’s appeal was being withdrawn. The matter was struck out and an order was made for costs to be awarded to UCD. 

High Court ruling

Dismissing the case in February, the High Court found the university had made significant efforts to support her and was entitled to require her to follow an academic plan before progressing through her medical degree.

In her ruling, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said there was no evidence of any breach of the plaintiff’s rights in how she was treated in relation to when her special grades were granted or her treatment by the academic staff of her school.

“What happened to the plaintiff between February and May 2023 was deeply traumatic for her and, in her own words, her life fell apart,” the judge said.

“Once the university was told in October 2023, they responded fairly and sympathetically and immediately recognised the impact that those events had on her ability to attend or pass her May 2023 exams.”

Ms Justice Bolger said the woman was awarded special grades, after which she “formed the erroneous view that this rendered her immune from any monitoring of her workload and from the imposition of an academic plan” and that it gave her rights to input into how she was to remediate.

“Those rights were never part of her agreement with the University,” she said.

The judge said UCD was entitled to impose the academic plan that it did, having liaised with the student’s module coordinators, and to seek to consult with her around which of the three options formulated for her that she wished to choose.

“It was the plaintiff’s decision not to engage with that plan, as it was her decision not to sit the remediation exams arranged for her in September 2024 and May 2025,” the judge continued.

“Those decisions had and continue to have consequences for the plaintiff and her progress through her degree programme, which are of her making and are not the fault of the University or its academic staff.”

Concluding, Ms Justice Bolger said: “It will be a matter for the university to decide how or if the plaintiff will be allowed a further opportunity to remediate her outstanding modules and/or progress to the next stage of her degree programme.

“The plaintiff is a talented young woman with her life ahead of her and it is to be hoped that she will avail of whatever opportunities are given to her, if any.”

With reporting from Valerie Flynn and Andrew Walsh