Oxford graduate sues university for not getting 1st

This guy graduated from Oxford in 2000 with a 2:1. He claims that poor teaching / supervision resulted in him getting a low 2:1 rather than a high 2:1 or a first, and because of that he never became a successful international lawyer or a QC.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5104281/Graduate-sues-Oxford-University-High-Court-1M.html

This is, of course, utter nonsense. He did end up having a legal career, but it was a fairly ordinary one. So it's his own lack of talent that held him back, not his degree classification. In the 17 years since he graduated, he could have done the Bar Transfer Test, got his foot in the door somewhere and then worked his way up at the bar.

Or he could have used his talents to excel as a solicitor and work his way up to partner, and perhaps even start his own firm.

Lord Widgery never even went to university and ended up as Lord Chief Justice. There are people with degrees from the Open University who have got pupillage and have perfectly respectable careers at the bar.

This man's problem is his own lack of talent and personal deficits, not anything Oxford did or did not do 17 years ago. 17 years is enough time to overcome not getting a first or high 2:1 if he had the innate talent.

Frankly, it's an embarrassment this this is even going to trial; it should have been struck out at the preliminary stage because it will be impossible to establish causation. It will be impossible for him to resist defendant arguments that pretty much everything he did career-wise post-2000 was a novus actus interveniens.

Reply 1

999tigger

19

I wondered what had happened to this case. I read a much more detailed expklanation of what happened and he does have some points. There were a lot of deficiencies in the teaching and in particular one lecturer and one course for which he got a 2:2. Someone else appealed and got lifted to a first, which he found out abut sometime later. I dont think either the BBC or the Daily Mail go through it in sufficient detail.

Reply 2

ExcitingUsername

7

Actual attempt at compensation for feeling "wronged" or, as I'd imagine is likelier, a shameless publicity stunt?

Reply 3

Trapz99

21

It's worth noting that he still managed to secure a Clifford Chance training contract despite his (in his words) "inexplicable failure" of a 2:1 Oxford degree. If he had the ability and drive, he could have had a very successful legal career.

Reply 4

Dysf(x)al

20

Ridiculous. You get the grade you work for and deserve. If other students in that class got firsts (which I'm almost certain of), I'm sure he could have. He should have complained immediately, not after over a decade when a million other variables have interfered. That's like suing your pre-school-teacher because you "only" got A*A*A at A-level or something.

Reply 5

the bear

20

the principle of volenti non fit injuria is applicable here. also caveat emptor, with a soupçon of causa proxima et non remota spectatur.

Reply 6

AlexanderHam

OP

19

Original post by 999tigger

I wondered what had happened to this case. I read a much more detailed expklanation of what happened and he does have some points. There were a lot of deficiencies in the teaching and in particular one lecturer and one course for which he got a 2:2. Someone else appealed and got lifted to a first, which he found out abut sometime later. I dont think either the BBC or the Daily Mail go through it in sufficient detail.

He may well have reason to complain that Oxford messed up in terms of his degree and the teaching. But he did get a 2:1 and so there's little doubt that he could get a pupillage and he would have risen as high as talent takes him.

I suspect getting a high 2:1 would have made little difference to his overall career trajectory.

Reply 7

Notoriety

22

He makes an interesting case for universities owing a reasonable quality of courses to their students. And that duty should be attached to potential future employment lost. For example, BSB and SRA require a 2:2 degree and if a university failed in its duty and people were thus not able to qualify for the respective authority, that should rightly give rise to a claim. The module he was complaining about was objectively poor, as accepted by the Uni, at the time the mush took it and many people got their worst results over the entire degree in the module. It does not seem reasonable that people should automatically have no right to remedy from Oxford for tarnished dreams.

That being said, this bloke is clearly a mope looking for an excuse. Commercial law was not nearly as precious as it is now; there are plenty of people around 10 years calling with 2:1s from Oxbridge. He had a 2:1, exceeding the BSB/SRA requirements. A TC at CC. Any failure to get ahead is due to his uninspiring and victim mentality attitude.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 8

AlexanderHam

OP

19

Original post by Trapz99

It's worth noting that he still managed to secure a Clifford Chance training contract despite his (in his words) "inexplicable failure" of a 2:1 Oxford degree. If he had the ability and drive, he could have had a very successful legal career.

Exactly. There are people with degrees from Open University who have went on to have quite successful legal careers. If he couldn't do that with a 2:1 from Oxford then that is down to his lack of talent, not his degree classification

Reply 9

AlexanderHam

OP

19

Original post by ExcitingUsername

Actual attempt at compensation for feeling "wronged" or, as I'd imagine is likelier, a shameless publicity stunt?

It's a real claim for compensation. A publicity stunt wouldn't really profit him in any way, and he is on the hook for probably north of £100,000 in Oxford's legal costs if he loses.

He probably has some savings and his legal team have convinced him he has a genuine shot. I do not see how he can win this

Reply 10

999tigger

19

Original post by AlexanderHam

He may well have reason to complain that Oxford messed up in terms of his degree and the teaching. But he did get a 2:1 and so there's little doubt that he could get a pupillage and he would have risen as high as talent takes him.

I suspect getting a high 2:1 would have made little difference to his overall career trajectory.

Not in the tax sets he was targeting. Trying to think where I read the detailed explanation of this guys situation. Might have been on a legal forum. I think he ended up going to CC instead. It was just one module I think.

Reply 11

Mikos

18

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't some (not all) employers prefer a 2:1 from Oxbridge to a 1st from another university?

Reply 12

balmainjeans

10

It sounds like a bad case of a midlife crisis. Either way it's unacceptable he's dragging Oxford's name down because of his own failures.

I do however sympathise with him if he did have actual health issues which went unaddressed although it's really too late to complain now.

Reply 13

AlexanderHam

OP

19

Original post by TheMindGarage

Ridiculous. You get the grade you work for and deserve. If other students in that class got firsts (which I'm almost certain of), I'm sure he could have. He should have complained immediately, not after over a decade when a million other variables have interfered. That's like suing your pre-school-teacher because you "only" got A*A*A at A-level or something.

Apparently there is some cause for him to complain about the standard of teaching at Oxford. There were some issues on his course and the module leader and his supervisor were off sick.

The problem he has is establishing a link between that possible breach of the standard of care by Oxford University, and his subsequent putative loss (which is the difference between what he would have earned as a legal high-flyer, and his current career).

I'd say that he could have had a high-flying legal career if he had the talent. As Trapz points out, he got a training contract with Clifford Chance and so he had the opportunity to rise as high as talent would take him.

So I'd say there is no causational link between any alleged breach by Oxford and his subsequent career trajectory

Reply 14

Dysf(x)al

20

Original post by AlexanderHam

Apparently there is some cause for him to complain about the standard of teaching at Oxford. There were some issues on his course and the module leader and his supervisor were off sick.

The problem he has is establishing a link between that possible breach of the standard of care by Oxford University, and his subsequent putative loss (which is the difference between what he would have earned as a legal high-flyer, and his current career).

I'd say that he could have had a high-flying legal career if he had the talent. As Trapz points out, he got a training contract with Clifford Chance and so he had the opportunity to rise as high as talent would take him.

So I'd say there is no causational link between any alleged breach by Oxford and his subsequent career trajectory

As I said, way too many variables in between then and now. Even if there was a legitimate issue, why did he wait so long to complain?

Reply 15

AlexanderHam

OP

19

Original post by 999tigger

Not in the tax sets he was targeting. Trying to think where I read the detailed explanation of this guys situation. Might have been on a legal forum. I think he ended up going to CC instead. It was just one module I think.

The thing is, it's entirely possible to pitch yourself at a lower-ranked set and then move later on when you've established that you're an absolute legal genius.

From personal experience, I know that sometimes it's better accept pupillage at a set that isn't your ideal one to get your foot in the door, and then make a name for yourself once you're in.

I think he rose as high as his talent would allow.

Reply 16

Trinculo

21

Original post by 999tigger

I wondered what had happened to this case. I read a much more detailed expklanation of what happened and he does have some points. There were a lot of deficiencies in the teaching and in particular one lecturer and one course for which he got a 2:2. Someone else appealed and got lifted to a first, which he found out abut sometime later. I dont think either the BBC or the Daily Mail go through it in sufficient detail.

That's all well and good if you are bringing a suit over not getting a better classification. The claim he is making is that he didn't as a result have a stellar legal career - specifically that but for the teaching failures he would have become an international commercial lawyer. This assumes some kind of guaranteed career path, which isn't a reality.

Reply 17

AlexanderHam

OP

19

Original post by TheMindGarage

As I said, way too many variables in between then and now. Even if there was a legitimate issue, why did he wait so long to complain?

This is another reasonable question. His claim is way out of time (Limitations Act 1980 allows for six years from the cause of action crystallising, with some exceptions). Oxford's lawyers are indeed arguing it's out of time

Reply 18

AlexanderHam

OP

19

He's also not making himself more employable by bringing this case. His name will be a byword for quixotic tort cases. He's been unemployed for a while, but the publicity here is not going to help him get back into work