Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford

Educational negligence claims require proof of breach, causation and legally recognised loss. A student’s under-performance, even in one examination, does not by itself establish negligent teaching. Examination results are affected by many factors, and a causal link between teaching quality and a particular result is difficult to prove.

Where inadequate teaching is alleged, the court must assess the teaching objectively against a reasonable standard. The standard is not necessarily the best teaching previously provided, and it must not become a counsel of perfection. A claimant must also prove that the alleged breach caused the relevant result and subsequent loss.

For limitation purposes, knowledge exists when the claimant knows enough to justify investigating whether there is a case, rather than only when the evidence is sufficient to prove it at trial.

The claimant, a former Oxford Modern History undergraduate, sued the University for alleged negligent teaching of a Special Subject gobbets paper and for failure by his personal tutor to communicate medical conditions affecting his examinations. He claimed that these matters caused a poor mark, a lower degree classification, psychiatric injury, career difficulties and failure to obtain admission to leading United States law schools.

The University denied breach, causation and liability, and contended that the claim was statute-barred. The action was tried after an earlier application for summary dismissal had been rejected by Kerr J in [2016] EWHC 3150 (QB). The issues were whether the teaching was negligently inadequate, whether the alleged medical communication failure occurred, whether either matter caused recoverable loss, and whether limitation should defeat the claim.

1. Teaching. The claim based on inadequate teaching failed. The relevant standard was objective reasonable competence. Earlier teaching had generally been very good, but that did not make it the required legal benchmark or impose a counsel of perfection. The additional workload undertaken by Professor Washbrook did not establish that his teaching fell below a reasonable standard. Student dissatisfaction and the fact that some students obtained their lowest mark in the gobbets paper were insufficient.
2. Causation. Even assuming a breach, the claimant could not prove that inadequate teaching caused his examination result. His good performance in Collections, his selective preparation, the unfamiliar nature of gobbets examinations, his other examination results and his severe hay fever were relevant competing explanations. A possible impact was insufficient. The court also rejected the suggested causal links between the degree result, psychiatric injury, failure to enter a leading United States law school and later career difficulties.
3. Medical information. The claimant failed to prove the alleged March 2000 conversation in which Dr Ingram supposedly undertook to ensure that depression, insomnia and anxiety were considered. The contemporaneous medical and documentary evidence supported Dr Ingram’s account. The court therefore did not decide whether the University could be vicariously liable for the tutor’s conduct.
4. Limitation. Applying the approach in AB v MOD [2013] 1 AC 78, the claimant had sufficient knowledge by early 2001 to begin investigating a claim. He knew of his alleged inadequate preparation, was aware of another student’s criticisms and knew that the medical evidence had not raised the conditions now relied upon. There was no fraudulent concealment under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, and the claim would have been statute-barred subject to section 33.
5. The claim was dismissed.

The judgment records that an earlier application by the defendant for summary dismissal was rejected by the High Court:

• High Court: the summary judgment application was rejected by Kerr J in [2016] EWHC 3150 (QB).
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): after trial, the claim was dismissed.