Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice

A claim concerning educational services is justiciable where it alleges negligent teaching or inadequate guidance, rather than inviting the court to re-mark examinations or substitute its academic judgment. A contractual term implied by section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires educational services to be provided with reasonable care and skill. Claims alleging inadequate professional teaching must generally satisfy the Bolam standard and require expert evidence, unless the alleged failure is a gross or readily demonstrable case. General under-performance does not establish negligent teaching.

The claimant enrolled on the defendant’s Legal Practice Course but failed it after three unsuccessful attempts at Property Law and Practice. She claimed damages for breach of contract, alleging inadequate tuition in examination technique, negligent self-marking of mock examinations, and inadequate feedback after failed examinations.

The defendant argued that the complaints involved non-justiciable academic judgment and that the alleged breaches were not established. The central issues were whether the claim was legally justiciable, what standard applied to the alleged educational negligence, whether expert evidence was required, and whether the defendant’s teaching and feedback fell below that standard.

1. Justiciability and contractual duty. The claim was not an impermissible challenge to academic judgment. The claimant did not ask the court to award her a pass or re-evaluate examination results. She alleged deficient teaching and feedback. Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 implied a term that the educational services would be provided with reasonable care and skill, in practical terms a contractual obligation to provide the services without negligence.
2. Applicable standard. The court treated the claim as materially equivalent to a negligence claim. The complaints concerned professional educational practice, including the design and marking of mock examinations, tuition in examination technique, and arrangements for feedback. Those matters required assessment under the Bolam test. This was not a gross case in which negligence could be established without expert evidence. Expert evidence was therefore required, in addition to proof of the factual foundation of the claim.
3. Alleged breaches. The claimant’s personal opinion and an inadequately supported survey of other providers did not establish that self-marking mock examinations was unreasonable. The external review identified inconsistency in assessment arrangements and recommended improvement, but did not state that self-marking was wrong or negligent. Improvement of a system did not demonstrate that the earlier system was unreasonable. The reasons advanced for self-assessment were cogent and unchallenged by expert evidence.
4. The small-group teaching provided guidance on the distinction between academic and practical examination answers. The claimant had access to tutors, personal-tutor meetings, revision sessions and individual feedback. The defendant was not required to compel adult students to use every available opportunity. The alleged deficiencies in teaching, feedback and examination guidance were not proved.
5. The claim therefore failed. In any event, there was no realistic chance that the claimant would have passed the course even if the alleged teaching deficiencies had occurred, given the breadth and persistence of her difficulties.