Siddiqui v University of Oxford: QBD 5 Dec 2016

The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was bound to fail was refused. Nor was the claim bound to fail under limitation difficulties. Application refused
References: [2016] EWHC 3150 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Kerr J
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 14(1)(b)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 472, Times 18-Apr-03, Gazette 19-Jun-03, [2003] CP Rep 51, [2003] CPLR 384, [2003] CPLR 349, [2003] QB 1556, [2003] 3 WLR 667)
    The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
    Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
  • Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA (Times 03-May-00, Bailii, [2000] 3 All ER 752, [2000] EWCA Civ 129, [2000] 1 WLR 1988)
    A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
    Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
  • Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL (Times 28-Jul-00, House of Lords, Gazette 31-Aug-00, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 47, [2001] 2 AC 619, [2000] 3 WLR 776, [2000] 4 All ER 504, (2000) 150 NLJ 1198)
    The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
  • Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD ([1957] 1 WLR 582, [1957] 2 All ER 118)
    Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
    Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
  • Cited – Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 613 (QB), [2011] ELR 385)
    The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had failed to provide her with the Legal Practice Course promised. The complaints included, in particular, an attack on the practice of having students mark their own mock examination papers.
  • Cited – Winstanley v Sleeman and Another QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC B43 (QB), [2013] EWHC 4792 (QB))
    The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The . .
  • Cited – Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA (Bailii, (1997) 37 BMLR 99, [1997] EWCA Civ 1232, [1997] 8 Med LR 125, [1997] PIQR 235)
    The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
  • Cited – Ministry of Defence v AB and Others SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 9, [2012] 2 WLR 643, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0247, [2012] 3 All ER 673, [2013] 1 AC 78, 125 BMLR 69, [2012] PIQR P13, [2012] WLR(D) 79, (2012) 125 BMLR 69, [2012] Med LR 306)
    The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
  • Cited – Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm) HL (Times 07-May-02, House of Lords, Bailii, [2002] UKHL 18, [2003] 1 AC 384, [2002] 2 WLR 1107, [2002] 19 EGCS 146, (2002) 81 Con LR 25, [2002] 2 All ER 641, [2002] PNLR 25, [2003] 1 CLC 101, [2002] 19 EGCS 146, 81 Con LR 25, [2003] 1 CLC 101)
    An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should . .
  • See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD ([2016] EWHC 3451 (QB))
    Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.572350