A former Clifford Chance trainee who sued Oxford University for £1m for ‘negligently inadequate teaching’ 17 years ago has had his claim dismissed by the High Court.
Faiz Siddiqui, who sat his modern history finals at Brasenose College in 1999/2000, argued that he should have graduated with a First or high Upper Second, rather than a low Upper Second. He blamed his result on ‘negligently inadequate teaching’ and the failure of his tutor to inform the relevant authorities about his insomnia, depression and anxiety. He said he suffered ‘torment’ over his results, lost out on a place at Harvard Law School, and was subsequently deprived of a lucrative career.
The university rejected his claims and argued that he was too late in bringing the action.
Siddiqui underwent a training contract at Clifford Chance, followed by short spells at other firms, where he said his performance suffered due to insomnia and depression, leading to problems getting to work on time and ‘poor personal presentation’.
Delivering judgment in Siddiqui v Oxford University [2018] EWHC 184 (QB), Mr Justice Foskett considered that the university was not prejudiced by the delay.
However, he concluded that Siddiqui had failed to demonstrate that, even with a higher mark in the paper, he would have obtained a First, or been admitted to a US law school. He accepted that the claimant had suffered bouts of severe depression over the years, but not that it stemmed from one exam result. Equally, his failure to hold down jobs at various law firms could be due to other reasons than depression. Moreover, his tutor could not be expected to know of his depression during his Finals, as his complaint at the time was of hay fever.
