Former student suing Oxford University for £1m in lost earnings – because he didn’t get a top degree
Modern History graduate Faiz Siddiqui, 38, claims 'appalling' tuition scuppered his chances of a first
A FORMER student is suing Oxford University for £1million in lost earnings, claiming “appalling” tuition ruined his chances of achieving a top degree.
Modern History graduate Faiz Siddiqui, 38, claims he would have had a stellar career as a commercial lawyer had he not emerged with just a 2:1 grade in 2000.
He says the university had difficulty teaching his Asian history course as more than half the faculty staff were on leave at the same time.
Mr Siddiqui now suffers from depression and insomnia which he links to his "disappointing examination results" and says he has a "fundamental inability to hold down any professional day job for any significant length of time."
He says the standard of tuition he received from Dr David Washbrook suffered as a result of the "intolerable" pressure the historian was under.
The Oxford grad is bringing a loss of earnings claim, valued by his lawyers as at least £1m, against the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford.
His counsel, Roger Mallalieu, said four of the seven staff teaching Asian history were on sabbatical leave at the same time during the 1999/2000 year.
The University did admit they had "difficulties" teaching Asian history in the year Mr Siddiqui graduated.
Furthermore, 13 of the 15 students who took the course received their lowest or joint lowest mark - showing "the standard of teaching was objectively unacceptable."
RELATED STORIES
He says that, had he got a first, he would have launched a successful international commercial law career in the USA.
More than a dozen other students could bring similar claims against the University if Mr Siddiqui succeeds, London's High Court was told.
Julian Milford, for the University, asked the judge to strike out the claim, telling him that Mr Siddiqui ought to have brought it immediately after he graduated.
He added that the University had done its utmost to help Mr Siddiqui at the time - making an allowance in some of his papers for his hay fever.
But Mr Mallalieu told the judge Mr Siddiqui didn't know enough about the problems with the teaching staff that year to launch a compensation bid until 2013.
Only then did he suspect "that there was any proper foundation or basis for a complaint beyond a mere post-examination grumble," said his barrister.
Mr Milford also denied that his claim against the University has any substance, although he admitted "circumstances were difficult" in that year.
He told the judge: "The lecturer (Dr Washbrook) said in an email that he was a bit stressed because of overwork and he thinks it may have affected his teaching style.
"But he didn't accept that it affected the quality of what he was delivering."
But, sounding a warning, Mr Justice Kerr said: "He doesn't, but the judge might."
A judgment is expected this month.