Oxford grad sues university for £2m: Claims bad teaching ruined his chances of becoming high-flying lawyer

Monday, 5 December 2016 By Legally India Law schools

Here's an idea we should try in India: Sue your law school for sub-standard teaching :-)

According to a report in The Guardian, 2000 Oxford University modern history graduate Faiz Siddiqui has filed a £1m claim in a UK court against his alma mater, alleging that the “appallingly bad” and “boring” instruction meant that he did not obtain a first (the highest possible grade) but only a 2:1 (the next highest grade) in college and therefore lost out on becoming a successful international commercial lawyer.

To be fair, the university reportedly admitted in its response to Siddiqui’s petition that he had been unlucky, with a number of his professors off on sabbatical, but also noted that it was too late now, after 16 years, to make the claim.

Siddiqui, who is now 38 and had trained as a solicitor, “said he underachieved in a course on Indian imperial history during his degree because of ‘negligent’ teaching which pulled down his overall grade”, according to the Guardian.

Photo by Peter Trimming

case of the week

Comments

Guest 6 Dec 2016, 05:11

+1 -2

This Oxford student Siddiqui is gone nuts to sue his 'alma mater'. One goes to the University 'to learn', not 'to be taught' everything. The teachers are only facilitators, they cannot push down 'knowledge' through anyone's throat. It was not that all students have similar grievance, the few who worked hard to supplement what is taught won the day. The ones, like Siddique, who expect everything to be provided by their University live in a fool's paradise. The claim is bound to fail, he can expect strictures from the Presiding Judge'

Delhi lawyer 6 Dec 2016, 10:20

+6 -0

I believe his claim is that the University did not meet the "promises" made to students as the faculty:student ratio and availability of faculty was below par. I also believe that the University's lawyers have acknowledged that *there were some issues* at the relevant time due to shortage of faculty.

Now, given that his claim has a leg to stand on and the University "failed to provide the promised service" after swallowing a hefty tuition fee, I don't see why you feel that the claimant is a nut! Other students may not have filed a court claim, but we do not know whether other students had submitted complaints on this aspect. In any event, whether others have preferred a similar claim is immaterial.

You rightly say that a University can only lead a horse to the water but cannot make it drink, but his claim seems to be that the University did not provide the promised road to the water. Why should a University not be liable if it does not meet its promises? If he can support his claim, the strictures may very well be for the University!

Commenting is closed for this article.