The Oxford student who wants £1million for missing out on a First 17 years ago
AN OXFORD graduate’s failure to get a top degree due to poor tuition cost him the chance of a lucrative legal career, the High Court heard.
Faiz Siddiqui, who is suing for £1million, says ‘inadequate’ teaching on part of his modern history course resulted in a 2:1 degree instead of a First 17 years ago.
He blames staff being absent on sabbatical leave. He also alleges medical information about him was not submitted to the examiners by a tutor.
Mr Siddiqui, 39, says he would have become an international commercial lawyer if he had gained the top qualification at the end of his time at Brasenose College, Oxford.
He claims his clinical depression and insomnia have been significantly exacerbated by his ‘inexplicable failure’.
In London yesterday, his lawyer Roger Mallalieu told the judge, Mr Justice Foskett, that in 2000, Mr Siddiqui was a ‘ driven young man’ aiming for a postgraduate qualification at an Ivy League university before a career at the tax bar in England or a major US law company.
The barrister said: ‘Whilst a 2:1 degree from Oxford might rightly seem like a tremendous achievement to most, it fell significantly short of Mr Siddiqui’s expectations and was, to him, a huge disappointment.’
His employment history after Oxford in legal and tax roles was ‘frankly poor’ and he was now unemployed, said Mr Mallalieu.
‘ Mr Siddiqui has been badly let down by Oxford.
‘He went there with high – perhaps extraordinarily high – expectations,’ the barrister told the High Court.
‘He and others became the victims of poor teaching provision by the university in what was anticipated to be his favoured special subject and he, uniquely among his peers, was further disadvantaged by his personal tutor not conveying his knowledge of his illnesses to those responsible for making reasonable adjustments.’
Oxford University denies negligence and causation. Julian Milford, who was representing the university, told the court Mr Siddiqui had complained that he had insufficient resources, but when discussing the teaching had merely described it as ‘a little bit dull’.
Mr Milford also added that the student had received the same amount of teaching as students would have done in any other year.
The hearing, which is only concerned about liability, continues.
If Mr Siddiqui succeeds in his claim, the amount of damages will be decided subsequently.